Judgment debtor sought interference over attachment of her pension bank account in execution, claiming exemption under Section 60 CPC and citing her critical health. As the Executing Court had not yet decided and was listed for orders, the High Court disposed of the petition without interference.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
$~57
Through: Mr. Aayush Agarwala with Ms. Gahena G and Mr. P. Jha, Advocates.
versus
PUSHPA SONKAR .....Respondent Through: None. CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MANOJ JAIN J U D G M E N T (oral)
Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:SONIA THAPLIYAL Signing Da te:0 8.05.2025 18:06:38
CM(M) 870/2025 1
Court could not pass any order that day and the matter is now listed for tomorrow for passing order.
(MANOJ JAIN) JUDGE
MAY 8, 2025/ sw/SS
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed CM(M) 870/2025 2 By:SONIA THAPLIYAL Signing Da te:0 8.05.2025 18:06:38
1 issue framed by the court
Whether this Court should interfere when the Executing Court has not yet passed an order on the judgment debtor's plea that her pension account is exempt from attachment under Section 60 CPC.
1 provisions across 1 enactments
Rajni Verma
Pushpa Sonkar
Manoj Jain
As recorded by the court registry
A petition under Article 227 of the Constitution invoking the High Court's supervisory jurisdiction over subordinate civil courts.
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
