Ram Prasad Mandora v. The Punjab National Bank, Udaipur & Ors.

HON'BLE MR. PRAKASH TATIA, J. HON'BLE MR. SANGEET LODHA, J. Mr. Suresh Shrimali, for the appellant. Mrs. Pramila Acharaya, for the respondent. <><><> Heard learned counsel for the appellant as learned counsel for the respondent -caveator has pleaded no instruction. The executing court passed the order dated 3rd June, 2006 even after holding that the amount of maintenance cannot be attached under Section 60 of CPC, but in the present case, in the opinion of the executing court it was necessary to find out whether the amount sought to be attached is the only amount which is available for maintenance of the appellant. The executing court, thereafter, gave opportunity to parties to produce evidence so as to decide the issue whether the amount in question is only amount of maintenance. Learned counsel for the appellant also submitted that even amount as received as compensation is also not attachable as per Section 60(e) of CPC. Since the present matter is against the order of the executing court by which the executing court decided to proceed 2 with holding an inquiry for finding out an issue, therefore, this Court is not inclined to interfere in the order passed either by the executing court or by the learned Single Judge dismissing the writ petition of the appellant-petitioner. However, point raised by the appellant shall remain open to be raised before the executing court. The appellant shall be free to challenge the order of the executing court in accordance with law in case the order goes against him. The appeal of the appellant is disposed of accordingly. The executing court is directed to decide the issue and objection within a period of six months from the date of receipt of copy of this order. The copy of this order be sent to the executing court forthwith. (SANGEET LODHA), J. (PRAKASH TATIA), J. cpgoyal/-