AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
M.M. Kumar, J.—This is a revision petition directed against the order dated 9.11.2001 passed by the learned Additional Civil Judge (Senior Division), Abohar, dismissing the objection of the JD-petitioner objecting that the accounts attached vide order dated 17.10.2001 belongs to Unit Run Canteen. The Civil Judge has reached a categorical conclusion that there is not an iota evidence to prove the fact that the account in question relates to Unit Run Canteen. The conclusion as recorded by the Civil Judge reads as under:
"Perusal of the objection petition does not disclose the name of objector, on whose behalf this objection petition has been filed by Shri Mohinder Kumar Sokhal Advocate. Further account No. 0l190010106 of Birg. Head Quarter, Military Canteen, Abohar was attached in terms of order dated 17.10.2001. It was case of the objector that this account in question is of Unit Run Canteen. But there is not any document on record to prove this fact. It is worth mentioning here that in this case. Commanding Officer, Brigade Hq. Gobindgarh is judgment debtor No. 3. This attached amount relates to JD No. 3."
I have heard Shri Kamal Sehgal, learned counsel for the JD-petitioner and Ms. Anjali Kukar, learned counsel for DH-respondents.
The first argument of Shri Kamal Sehgal learned counsel for judgment debtor-petitioner is that the account attached as referred in para 8 of the impugned order reproduced above relates to the Unit Run Canteen and it has got nothing to do with the judgment debtor-petitioner. He has further argued that in view of the provisions of Section 28 of the Army Act, 1950, the accounts relating to the Army could not be attached. On the other hand. Ms. Anjali Kukar, learned counsel for decree-holder-respondent has argued that there is no evidence on record to show that the account mentioned in para 8 relates to the Unit Run Canteen. According to her it is a finding of fact recorded by the Civil Judge that the account relates to Brigade Headquarter, who is JD-petitioner No. 3. Therefore, the revision petition is liable to be dismissed.
I have thoughtfully considered the submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties and have perused the record with their assistance.
The first argument of the learned counsel is devoid of merit for the simple reason that if the account do not relates to the JD-petitioner, then they could not be considered to be aggrieved by the impugned order. Therefore, no revision u/s 115 would be competent.
The other argument raised by the JD-petitioner concerning Section 28 of the Act, would also not come to his rescue. Section 28 of the Act reads as under:
"28. Immunity from attachment - Neither the arms, clothes, equipment, accountrements or necessaries of any person subject to this Act, nor any animal used by him for the discharge of his duty, shall be seized, nor shall the pay and allowances of any such person or any part thereof be attached, by direction of any civil or revenue court or any revenue officer in satisfaction of any decree or order enforceable against him."
A bare perusal of Section 28 would reveal that it grants immunity from attachment to those who are covered by the provisions of this ''Act''. The argument of the learned counsel that Unit Run Canteen would deprive the jawans necessary facilities of food etc. has to be rejected because firstly the account attached is not that of Unit Run Canteen are not subject to the Act. Therefore, I have no hesitation in rejecting the second argument of Shri Seghal. For the reasons recorded above, this revision petition fails and the same is hereby dismissed.