Iruthayasamy vs Janakammal

Pratap Singh, J.—This revision is directed against the order passed in E.P. No. 636 of 1991 in O.S. No. 365 of 1987 attaching the salary of the revision petitioner herein in execution of the decree in O.S. No. 365 of 1987.

Learned Counsel for the revision petitioner would submit that the decree passed in O.S. No. 365 of 1987 is an ex parte decree, that the revision petitioner who is the defendant in the court below has already filed a petition to set aside the ex parte decree and has also filed a petition for condoning the delay in filing the petition and a conditional order was passed, but due to the reasons which according to him was valid, the cost was not paid within time and so the petition was dismissed and now again he has filed a petition for restoring the same and the petition is pending enquiry before the court below and in the circumstances, attachment granted by the court below in this E.P. is not correct.

I have carefully considered the submissions made by rival counsels. As has been rightly pointed out by the lower appellate court, there is a validly passed decree in O.S. No. 365 of 1987 and it is yet to be set aside. Till it is set aside the plaintiff/decree-holder is at liberty to proceed to realise the decree in execution of the decree by attaching the salary of the revision petitioner which has been ordered. I find absolutely nothing wrong in the said attachment. If the revision petitioner succeeds in setting aside the decree, it would necessarily follow that this attachment would also fall to ground. When the decree is there staring at the face of the revision petitioner, I am of the opinion that the revision has to fail.

In view of the above, this revision is dismissed. No costs.