@JUDGMENTTAG-ORDER
A. Selvam, J.@mdashThis Civil Revision Petition has been directed against the order passed in E.A. No. 3 of 2004 in E.P. No. 138 of 1999 in Original Suit No. 180 of 1989 by the First Additional District Munsif Court, Nagercoil.
2. The petitioner herein as plaintiff has instituted Original Suit No. 180 of 1989 on the file of the trial Court/Executing Court, wherein the first respondent has been shown as sole defendant. In Original Suit No. 180 of 1989, an executable money decree has been passed and the same has been put into execution in E.P. No. 138 of 1999 by way of impleading the second respondent as garnishee. The second respondent garnishee as per order passed by the Executing Court, has deducted some amounts from the salary of the first respondent/Judgment debtor. During pendency of E.P. No. 138 of 1999, E.A. No. 3 of 2004 has been filed by the decree holder as petitioner to make deduction from the salary of the first respondent/Judgment debtor on the basis of revised scale of pay. The Executing Court after hearing both sides has dismissed the petition. Against the dismissal order, the present Civil Revision Petition has been filed.
3. The learned counsel appearing for the revision petitioner has contended that the first respondent has got superannuation and now he is getting monthly pension and under the said circumstances, the Executing Court can be directed to pass an order afresh and therefore the impugned order passed by the Executing Court is liable to be set aside.
4. The learned counsel appearing for the first respondent/Judgment debtor has contended that even the Executing Court has given such liberty to the revision petitioner to the effect that he can adopt other legal method to recover remaining portion of decretal amount and therefore the present Civil Revision Petition deserves to be dismissed.
5. It is an admitted fact that the revision petitioner as plaintiff has instituted Original Suit No. 180 of 1989 on the file of the trial Court/Executing Court, wherein an executable decree has been passed and the same has been put into execution in E.P. No. 138 of 1999. In E.P. No. 138 of 1999, the present second respondent has been shown as garnishee and he has been directed to deduct lawful amount from monthly salary of the Judgment debtor/first respondent. During pendency of E.P. No. 138 of 1999, the present application has been filed in E.A. No. 3 of 2004 and the same has been dismissed by the Executing Court.
6. Considering the fact that the first respondent/Judgment debtor has got superannuation and now he is getting monthly pension, the Executing Court can be directed to pass an order afresh on the basis of the fact that the first respondent/Judgment debtor is now getting monthly pension and therefore the impugned order is liable to be set aside.
7. In fine, this Civil Revision Petition is allowed without costs and the order passed in E.A. No. 3 of 2004 in E.P. No. 138 of 1999 in Original Suit No. 180 of 1989 by the First Additional District Munsif Court, Nagercoil is set aside and the petition filed in E.A. No. 3 of 2004 is remitted to the file of the Executing Court. The Executing Court is directed to pass suitable order on the basis of present circumstances and also as per law. Consequently, connected Miscellaneous Petition is closed.
