[Cites 7, Cited by 0]
Punjab-Haryana High Court
Akbar Ali vs Gian Singh on 15 December, 2025
CR-9383-2025 (O&M)
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
136 CR-9383-2025 (O&M)
Date of decision: 15.12.2025
Akbar Ali ...Petitioner(s)
Vs.
Gian Singh ...Respondent(s)
CORAM: HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE NIDHI GUPTA
Present:- Mr. Deepak Goyal, Advocate for the petitioner.
***
NIDHI GUPTA, J.
Present Civil Revision Petition under Article 227 of
Constitution of India has been filed by the Judgment Debtor seeking
setting aside of the impugned Judgment dated 31.10.2025 passed by Ld.
Additional District Judge, Sangrur while dismissing the appeal filed by
petitioner-Judgment Debtor (Annexure P-3) in CA/91/2025 titled as
Akbar Ali Versus Gian Singh; and Order dated 03.09.2025 passed by Ld.
Civil Judge (Junior Division), Dhuri (Annexure P-1) in EXE/09/2020 titled
as Gian Singh Versus Akbar Ali, vide which warrants of attachment of
account of petitioner has been issued and directions have been issued to
concerned DDO to deduct 50% of the amount as and when pension is
received and deposited in the account of petitioner-Judgment Debtor.
2. It is inter alia submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner
that pension being received by the petitioner could not have been
DIVYANSHI attached as the pension being credited into the account of the
CR-9383-2025 (O&M)
petitioner, the same does not loose its character and continues to be
covered by proviso (g) of Section 60(1) of the Civil Procedure Code. It is
submitted that it is so held by Hon'ble Supreme Court in Radhey Shaym
Gupta vs. Punjab National Bank & Anr., (AIR 2009 Supreme Court, 930).
It is submitted that even in terms of Section 60(1)(g) of the CPC and
Section 11 of the Pension Act, 1871, pension being received by the
petitioner is protected as 100% immune from attachment.
3. It is further submitted that only an amount of Rs.32,000/- is
being received by the petitioner as pension, of which petitioner is paying
EMI of Rs.10,000/-; and vide the impugned order, 50% of the pension
amount i.e. Rs.16,000/- is being deducted. It is also submitted that
petitioner is not in ownership of any property through which decree
could have been satisfied. It is accordingly prayed that the present
Revision Petition be allowed; and the impugned orders be set aside.
4. No other argument is raised on behalf of the petitioner. I
have heard learned counsel and perused the case file in detail. I find no
merit in the submissions advanced by the learned counsel for the
petitioner.
5. Perusal of the record of the suit shows that the
respondent/plaintiff/Decree Holder had filed a Civil Suit No. 344 dated
12.05.2017 for recovery of Rs.2,85,000/- against the petitioner. The said
suit was decreed by the learned Trial Court vide judgment and decree
dated 03.07.2018 holding the plaintiff entitled to recovery of
Rs.2,50,000/- alongwith interest @ 9% p.a. The petitioner/Judgment
CR-9383-2025 (O&M)
Debtor had preferred Civil Appeal bearing No. CA/346/2018; which was
dismissed by learned District Judge, Sangrur vide judgment and decree
dated 08.02.2019. Thereafter, respondent/Decree Holder had filed an
application under Order 21 Rule 11 CPC seeking attachment and
disbursement of arrears of salary of petitioner as at that time the
petitioner was working as A.L.M. and posted in Sub-Division, P.S.P.C.L
office, Village Ghamrauda, Tehsil Nabha through his D.D.O./AEE, P.S.P.C.L
and by way of attaching retiral benefits i.e. GPF, Ex-gratia, Leave
encashment etc. and house hold articles as well as amount lying in his
bank account. Objections filed by the petitioner to the said application
of the Decree Holder have been dismissed by the Executing Court vide
impugned order dated 03.09.2025. The Appeal (Annexure P-2) filed by
the petitioner against order dated 3.9.2025 has been dismissed by First
Appellate Court vide impugned judgment dated 31.10.2025 (P-3).
6. Argument of learned counsel for the petitioner that pension
could not have been attached in terms of judgment of Hon'ble Supreme
Court passed in Radhey Shyam Gupta (supra) is misplaced. I am in
agreement with the view taken by the learned Courts below in the
impugned orders that once the Government releases the pension, it
becomes the capital income of the petitioner; and the pension is
protected and retains its character until, it reaches the hands of the
pensioner. I am supported in my view by a recent judgment passed by
Madras High Court in R.Nagarajan v. Managing Director and Chief
Executive Officer Head Office, (Madras) : Law Finder Doc Id # 1248286,
CR-9383-2025 (O&M)
decided on 27.08.2018, wherein, while relying upon another judgment
of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in case of "Union of India versus Jyoti
Chit Fund and Finance, and others" AIR 1976 Supreme Court 1163, the
said judgment in Radhey Shyam Gupta (supra) was distinguished as
under:-
"12. However, the Writ Petitioner is a defaulter so also his
son. Therefore, the amount deposited by the Writ Petitioner
in his account was adjusted based on the letter of lien
executed in favour of the bank both by the son of the Writ
Petitioner as well as by the Writ Petitioner. Thus, there is no
irregularity in respect of the adjustment of the loan amount
from the account of the Writ Petitioner. In order to repudiate
the contention of the Writ Petitioner stating that the pension
amount cannot be attached, the learned counsel for the
Respondents cited judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of
India in the case of Union of India v. Jyoti Chit Fund and
Finance and Others reported in AIR 1976 Supreme Court
1163, wherein para 11 of the judgment is extracted
hereunder:-
"11.We may state without fear of contradiction that
provident fund amounts, pensions and other compulsory
deposits covered by the provisions we have referred to,
retain their character until they reach the hands of the
employee. The reality of the protection is reduced to
illusory formality if we accept the interpretation sought.
We take a contrary view which means that attachment is
possible and lawful only after such amounts are received
by the employee. If doubts may possibly be entertained
on this question, the decision in Radha Kissen (1969) 3
SCR 28 - (AIR 1969 Supreme Court 762) erases them.
Indeed our case is a fortiori one, on the facts. A bare
reading of Radha Kissen makes the proposition fool-
proof that so long as the amounts are Provident Fund
CR-9383-2025 (O&M)
dues then, till they are actually paid to the government
servant who is entitled to it on retirement or otherwise,
the nature of the dues is not altered. What is more, that
case is also authority for the benignant view that the
government is a trustee for those sums and has an
interest in maintaining the objection in court to
attachment. We follow that ruling and overrule the
contention."
13. This apart, this Court is of an opinion that it is not as if the
pensioner can simply escape from the liability by stating that
the pension amount cannot be attached at all. No doubt the
pension paid to a Government employee is to be protected, in
order to protect the livelihood of the Petitioner. However, the
facts and circumstances of each case is to be considered with
reference to the purpose and object sought to be achieved by
granting exemption for recovery of pension. For instance the
pensioner, who is otherwise rich enough to lead a standard life
and believing on the principle that the pension account cannot
be attached, then the Courts are committing an act of injustice
in respect of the public money. The banks are being run from
and out of the public money deposited by the public at large.
Thus, there cannot be any absolute exemption in respect of the
pension account. Even in yet another case, where the
pensioner is not maintaining his spouse and his spouse on filing
an application for maintenance and if the Court passed an
order granting maintenance in favour of the spouse and the
principles mooted by the learned counsel for the Petitioner that
the pension account never be attached at all is accepted, then
the livelihood of the spouse is denied. Therefore, various
circumstances arising from and out of differential facts are to
be considered while taking decision in such matters, It is not as
if a blanket exemption is granted in respect of the attachment
of the pension amount from the pensioners."
CR-9383-2025 (O&M)
7. I am in complete agreement with the ratio of the above
judgment passed by the Madras High Court. Thus, keeping in view of the
above factual and legal position, the present Civil Revision Petition is
accordingly dismissed.
8. Pending application(s), if any, also stand(s) disposed of.
15.12.2025 (NIDHI GUPTA)
Divyanshi JUDGE
Whether speaking/reasoned: Yes/No
Whether reportable: Yes/No
