The development came to light in a reply given by the High Court's Public Information Officer to a query made by Boban Mattumantha under the Right to Information Act. In the reply, the PIO has stated that Rule Committee has decided to delete sub-rule (2) of Order XXI Rule 54 CPC, which deals with the proclamation.

Order XXI deals with execution of decrees and order and Rule 54 is regarding attachment of immovable property. The sub-rule (1) states that where a property is immovable, the attachment must be made by an order prohibiting the judgment-debtor from transferring or creating any charge on the property. Sub-rule (2) lays down that this order shall be proclaimed at some place on or adjacent to the property attached by beat of drum or other customary mode and a copy of the order has to affixed on a conspicuous part of the property the court, etc.

The Rule Committee discussed and made the resolution while considering a petition made by Mattumantha, questioning the need for the archaic practice. The file was forwarded to the Committee by the then High Court Chief Justice S. Manikumar for consideration for orders.

“It seems that the request of the petitioner to abolish the practice of proclamation in its entirety during proceedings for attachment of immovable property would require amendments to Rule 54 of Order 21 of the Code of Civil Procedure. Here it may kindly be noted that the Tom Tom charges were enhanced from 15 to 100/- in the year 2016 vide High Court notification…dated 5-4-2016…on the recommendations of the Rule Committee. In the circumstance, it may kindly be considered whether the matter be referred to the Rule Committee constituted under Section 123 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 for its opinion and recommendations,” it was noted in the file.

In the petition, Mattumantha had submitted that in the present times, there are alternative means to convey information regarding the attachment order using notices, posters, print and visual media, social media, etc. He had pointed out an incident in Kollam in which a girl student committed suicide after being disheartened by the installation of an attachment board in front of her house.

In the petition, he also highlighted that the courts in the State had been levying Rs. 100 as “Tom-Tom charge” for each such declaration. He had further pointed out that during telephonic enquiries made to the district courts in Thiruvananthapuram, Ernakulam, Palakkad and Kozhikode, it was informed that proclamation by drum beating is not prevalent in those areas.

In 2022, Mattumantha had preferred another RTI application before the PIO of the Palakkad District Court. In the reply issued, it was stated that in the period between January, 2022 to October, 2022, the courts in the district had recovered Rs. 56,000 as tom tom charges. The reply also informed that the practice of drum beating is no longer existing but “kinnam mutti vilambaram” is continuing.

Click to Read/Download RTI Replies