# remainder of the salary granted under C.P.C. Amendment Act (no.26) of 1963

- **Citation:** C.L. No. 48
- **Court:** Allahabad High Court
- **Decided:** 1959-01-23
- **Case number:** C.L. No. 48
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/remainder-of-the-salary-granted-under-c-p-c-amendment-act-no-26-of-1963-163298
- **Pages:** 2

## Text

219
This is beside the exemption of the first two hundred rupees and one half of the
remainder of the salary granted under C.P.C. Amendment Act (no.26) of 1963.
C.E. No. 51 dated 7th September, 1964
District Judges and additional District Judges have been asked to impress upon
the court functioning under them to give effect to the amended provision of section 60
C.P.C.
C.L. No. 48 dated 22nd September, 1967
Presiding Officers should follow the instructions contained in Court's C.L. No.
9/VII-f-181, dated January 23, 1959, and not attach the Provident Fund amounts standing
to the credit of the employees as it is in contravention of the provision of section 10 of the
Employee's Provident Fund Act, 1952.
Execution proceedings against government servants
C.L. No. 38/VIII-b-10 dated 9th June, 1950 read with
G.L. No. 44/180-33(3) dated 5th September, 1935
The correct procedure to be followed by the executing court in cases in which a
decree against a government servant is sought to be executed by his arrest is that a notice
of the intended arrest of the judgment- debtor, should be addressed and sent to the Head
of the Office where the judgment -debtor may be employed, mentioning the probable
date when a warrant for his arrest is likely to be issued. The Head of the Office should in
no case be asked to suspend the government servant concerned.
Awarding of costs
G.L. No. 2031, dated 30th June, 1897

In many cases it happens that an application for execution fails owing to the fault
of the decree-holder, and in all such cases he should himself be made to bear all the
charges to which the judgment-debtor may have been put owing to the decree-holder's
fault or neglect. Among others, the following may be mentioned as cases in which the
decree-holder should not be allowed to recover his costs from the judgment-debtor :
(1)
When the decree-holder allows an application to be struck off for want of
prosecution.
(2)
When the decree-holder puts in an application which the court considers to
be unnecessary.
(3)
When the application is defective and is consequently disallowed.
(4)
When two separate applications are put in, but the subject-matter of the
second application might reasonably have been included in the first
application.
(5)
When the application is made for execution against property with which
the judgment-debtor has no concern.
Persistent neglect to exercise proper discretion in the awarding of costs in cases of
this kind on the part of a presiding officer will be taken notice of by the High Court.
220
Effect of stay order
G.L. No. 18/67015 dated 1st August, 1928
An order of stay is passed by this court on the supposition that execution of a
particular decree has not taken place. If execution has already taken place, it is not the
intention of this Court that there should be restitution in pursuance of the order of this
Court.
Expeditious disposal of Execution Cases.
C.L.No 39/98 : Dated 20th August, 1998
 It has come to the notice of the Court that interest in the disposal of
execution cases is not being taken by the judicial officers. Pendency of execution cases
for a very long time not only results in hardship to the decree-holders but also
creates unnecessary litigation. The Court has taken a decision that by giving due
regards to the existing laws and the provisions efforts should be made for early
disposal of execution cases.
I am, therefore, directed to communicate you the direction to the Hon`ble for
Court for strict compliance.
Execution in Jammu and Kashmir
C.L. No. 51/VIIIb-16-4-55 dated 30th August, 1955

The decrees passed by a civil court in India may be executed through a court situate
in the State of Jammu and Kashmir as if the decree had been passed by such a court in
that State.
Execution in foreign countries
C.E. No. 73/VIII-b-245 dated 11th August, 1969
Under notification, dated June 17, 1968, Republic of Singapore has been declared
a reciprocating territory for the purpose of section 44 A C.P.C. and the High Court of the
Republic of Singapore to be a superior Court with reference to that territory.
C.E. No. 81 dated 22nd August, 1969

From 1st September, 1968 ̳Trinidad' and Tobago are declared to be reciprocating
territories for the purpose of section 44- A C.P.C. and the following courts will be
superior courts of that territory:
(e)
High Courts;
(f)
Courts of Appeal;
(g)
Industrial Court; and
(h)
Income Tax Appeal Board