Skip to content


Bhanwarlal Vs. Bhairulal - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
SubjectCivil
CourtRajasthan High Court
Decided On
Case NumberS.B. Civil Revision No. 22 of 1972
Judge
Reported in1974WLN(UC)167
AppellantBhanwarlal
RespondentBhairulal
DispositionPetition allowed
Excerpt:
.....came into force - juvenile act, of 2000 has been given retrospective effect by rule 12 of juvenile justice rule, 2007 - as such, accused has to be treated as juvenile under the said act. - 36 66 were liable to attachment in execution of the decree, and as the learned judge of the lower court has failed to discharge his duty of interpreting the correct meaning of the relevant provision of the law, there can be no doubt that he has failed to exercise the jurisdiction vested in him by law......of notice.2. heard learned counsel. the short question for decision in this case is whether the learned judge, small causes court, ajmer, has committed an error of law in the exercise of his jurisdiction in making the order dated september 18, 19713. it will be sufficient to say that the present petitioner obtained a decree against the non-petitioner for rs. 500/-, with costs. the non-petitioner did not pay the decretal amount, and the petitioner had to file an application for the execution of the decree by attachment of a part of his salary. the non-petitioner was an employee of the life insurance corporation of india, and the corporation reported that his salary was rs. 273.32 consisting of the basic pay of rs. 150/- dearness allowance of rs. 94.50, house-rent allowance of rs. 20/-.....
Judgment:

P.N. Shinghal, J.

1. No one has appeared on behalf of the non-petitioner inspite of service of notice.

2. Heard learned counsel. The short question for decision in this case is whether the learned Judge, Small Causes Court, Ajmer, has committed an error of law in the exercise of his jurisdiction in making the order dated September 18, 1971

3. It will be sufficient to say that the present petitioner obtained a decree against the non-petitioner for Rs. 500/-, with costs. The non-petitioner did not pay the decretal amount, and the petitioner had to file an application for the execution of the decree by attachment of a part of his salary. The non-petitioner was an employee of the Life Insurance Corporation of India, and the Corporation reported that his salary was Rs. 273.32 consisting of the basic pay of Rs. 150/- dearness allowance of Rs. 94.50, house-rent allowance of Rs. 20/- and personal way of Rs. 8.82. The learned Judge of the court below however refused to execute the decree by attachment of a portion of the salary of the non-petitioner under the impression that the dearness and the house rent allowances of the non petitioner were not liable to attachment in accordance with notification No. 186-87 dated October 2, 1940, of the Central Government, and the remaining amount was not liable to attachment as it fell below the minimum prescribed by clause (1) of the proviso to Sub-section (1) of Section 60, Civil Procedure Code.

4. As is obvious, the impugned order has been passed under the incorrect impression that the non-petitioner was a servant of the Government or of a railway company or local authority within the meaning of clause (e) of the proviso to Sub-section (1) of Section 60 of the Code of Civil Procedure. This was not so, for he was an employee of the Life Insurance Corporation, and the aforesaid notification of the Central Government dated October 2, 1940, had nothing to do with him. The dearness and the house rent allowances of the non-petitioner, there fore formed Dart of his 'salary' by virtue of Explanation 2 of Sub-section (1) of Section 60 His salary to the extent of the first two hundred rupees and one half of the remainder were, however, not liable to attachment in execution of the petitioner's decree, In other words, Rs. 36 66 were liable to attachment in execution of the decree, and as the learned Judge of the lower court has failed to discharge his duty of interpreting the correct meaning of the relevant provision of the law, there can be no doubt that he has failed to exercise the jurisdiction vested in him by law.

5. The revision petition is allowed, the impugned order of the Judge, Small Causes Court, Ajmer, dated September 18, 1971, is set aside and it is ordered that the sum of Rs. 36.66 will be liable to attachment in execution of the petitioner's decree against the non-petitioner. The petitioner will also be entitled to costs in this Court and the court below.


Save Judgments// Add Notes // Store Search Result sets // Organizer Client Files //