Heard learned counsel for the petitioner.
Respondent no. 3 is wife of petitioner. It is contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner that she filed a suit for maintenance. During the pendency of the suit, an application was filed under Order XXXVIII Rule 5 CPC for attachment of the pension and other post retiral benefits of the petitioner before decree. The petitioner inspite of time having been allowed to file objection did not contest the same. On the date fixed, he did not appear and the trial court vide impugned order attached the pension and other post retiral benefits of the petitioner.
It is contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner that because of the attachment of pension it has become difficult for him to meet his expenses and the question of survival is before him.
Be that as it may, the petitioner himself did not contest the proceedings and did not file any objection. The petitioner has also not file copy of the plaint on record of the writ petition as such the Court is at a loss to know the details of the claim made by the plaintiff-respondent no. 3 in the suit.
However, considering the facts and circumstances and in particular the fact that the order of attachment was passed exparte against the petitioner, interest of justice would stand served by permitting the petitioner to move an application for recall of the order dated 29.11.2008 before the trial court along with objection which he may have for attachment. In case any such application and objections are filed by the petitioner, the trial court shall decide the same in accordance with law by means of a reasoned and speaking order after notice and opportunity of hearing to all concerned expeditiously.
Subject to the aforesaid observations, the writ petition stands dismissed.
Order Date :- 7.1.2010 Dcs