Allowed

Challamcherla Nagaraju Padmavathamma v. Vasantha Prabhakra Naidu

Telangana HC27 Aug 2010CRP/2395/2008

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court allowed a civil revision petition setting aside an order attaching the gratuity amount before judgment under Order XXXVIII Rule 5 CPC. The Court held that Section 60 CPC specifically exempts gratuities from attachment.

What did the court decide?

The order allowing attachment before judgment against the gratuity amount is set aside. The Civil Revision Petition is allowed.

Challamcherla Nagaraju Padmavathamma Vs Vasantha… — Execution and Attachment | Telangana HC (2010)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD

¶2

FRIDAY, THE TWENTYSEVENTH DAY OF AUGUST TWO THOUSAND AND TEN

¶3

HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G. BHAVANI PRASAD Civil Revision Petition No.2395 of 2008

¶4

Between:

¶5

Challamcherla Nagaraju Padmavathamma

¶6

..Petitioner

¶7

AND

¶8

Vasantha Prabhakar Naidu

¶9

.. Respondent

¶10

ORDER:

¶11

The Civil Revision Petition is directed against the order in I.A.No.140 of 2008 in O.S.No.271 of 2007 on the file of the Principal Senior Civil Judge, Tirupathi, dated 19-02-2008.

¶12

By virtue of the said order, notwithstanding the objection raised with reference to Section 60 of the Code of Civil Procedure (for short “CPC") and a decision of this Court reported in 1998 (6) ALT 829, the trial Court ordered attachment of the amount received towards encashment of earned leave as well as gratuity.

¶13

The grievance of the revision petitioner is about the attachment before judgment under Order XXXVIII Rule 5 CPC being in violation of Section 60 of the said Code and in any view,

¶14

the gratuity could not have been attached.

¶15

In spite of service of notice, the respondent-plaintiff did not enter appearance before this Court. Sri C. Subhodh, learned counsel, representing Sri O. Manohar Reddy, learned counsel for the revision petitioner is heard.

¶16

Insofar as the amount of cash received on encashment of earned leave is concerned, which was already ordered to be attached before judgment by the impugned order, the grounds of revision did not raise any objection and even the interim stay granted by this Court, while admitting the revision, was only in respect of the attachment of gratuity amount alone as per the orders dated 27-06-2008 in C.R.P.M.P.No.3167 of 2008.

¶17

Section 60 CPC allows by sub-section (1) (g) the gratuities allowed to pensioners of the Government or of a local authority or of any other employer to be not liable for attachment or sale in execution of a decree and as the same considerations governed the attachment of any property before judgment also as laid down in Rule 11-A of Order XXXVIII of CPC, the trial Court could not have ordered the attachment of gratuity of the revision petitioner before judgment. In the light of the specific exclusion of the gratuity amount from attachment by Section 60 CPC, the impugned order has to be set aside to that extent.

¶18

Accordingly, the order in I.A.No.140 of 2008 in O.S.No.271 of 2007 on the file of the Principal Senior Civil Judge, Tirupathi, dated 19-02-2008 is set aside insofar as allowing of the petition for attachment before judgment against the gratuity amount paid/ payable to the revision petitioner. The Civil Revision Petition is allowed accordingly without costs.

¶19

_____________________ G. BHAVANI PRASAD, J

¶20

Date: 27-08-2010

¶21

Ksn

Challamcherla Nagaraju Padmavathamma v. Vasantha Prabhakra Naidu

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Challamcherla Nagaraju Padmavathamma v. Vasantha Prabhakra Naidu

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Poornima Dressess Vs Yashoda Devi Sharda

Smt Prema Ravindranath, Vs M/s. Nadella Estates Limited

Sri Damera Venkata Surya Satyanarayana Rao, Vs Marneedi Venkataramana (Died) Per L.Rs.

Dharmajipeta Malla Reddy Vs Dharmajipeta Prathap Reddy

Vasamsetty Venkata Ramachandra Rao, Vs Vijayawada Municipal Corporation

Smt. Sriramula Vijaya Laxmi, Vs Smt. Firdous Fathima