HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE P.NAVEEN RAO
CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO.3123 OF 2022
Date: 24.03.2023
Between:
M/s.Sreenilaya Chit Fund Pvt. Ltd.,
Rep.by its Managing Director,
Mr. A.B. Shankara Rao,
s/o. A.Bhadrachalam, Aged about 70 years,
O/o Lakdikapul, Hyderabad.
.....Petitioner/
Decree-holder
and
Mr. S.N.Srinivas s/o. S.N.Thanasulose,
Aged about 35 years, r/o. 10-4-595,
Ex-Serviceman Colony, Pochammabasthi,
Humayun Nagar, Hyderabad and others.
.....Respondents/
Judgment Debtors 1 to 6
The Court made the following:
PNR,J
CRP No.3123 of 2022
2
HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE P.NAVEEN RAO
CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO.3123 OF 2022
ORDER:
Seeking enforcement of the Award of Arbitrator dated 25.03.2019 in Arb/CF.No.20 of 2017 on the file of Deputy Registrar of Chits/Arbitrator at Erragadda, Hyderabad (South), for a sum of 2,42,618/- with costs holding respondents therein as jointly and severally liable, the Decree-holder filed E.P.No.462 of 2019 in the Court of IX Junior Civil Judge, City Civil Court at Hyderabad to realize awarded amount of 3,48,711/- from Judgment debtors 2, 3 and 4 by way of attachment of salary under Order XXI Rule 48 of Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (CPC). On 09.07.2019 the Court below ordered attachment of salary of judgment debtors 2, 3 and 4.
2. It is the case of petitioner that even though attachment order was served on the Garnishee, i.e., the Deputy Educational Officer, Lakdikapul, Ranga Reddy district, under whose control Judgment debtors 2, 3 and 4 were working on 16.07.2019, the Garnishee has not withheld the amounts and remitted the amounts as required by Order XXI Rule 48(2) of CPC.
PNR,J CRP No.3123 of 2022 3
3. Hence, he filed E.A.No.78 of 2021 in E.P.No.462 of 2019 to attach movable assets of the Garnishee/7th respondent. The trial Court dismissed the E.A. Hence, this Revision.
4. I have heard learned counsel for petitioner. Though notices served, no representation for Judgment debtors 2, 3 and 4 and for Garnishee.
5. Rule 48 of Order XXI envisages attachment of salary or allowance of Government employee or an employee of local authority where such salary is to be disbursed within the local limits to which CPC extends. In terms of Order XXI Rule 48, whenever attachment of salary or allowance order is passed, it is the duty of the Disbursing Officer to withhold the amount and remit to the Court. If he fails to comply with the order of the Executing Court, under Rule 48(3) the amount can be recovered from the Garnishee.
6. That being the statutory mandate, the Court below only said that the property of the Garnishee cannot be attached. It is a cryptic order. No reasons are assigned why it failed to exercise jurisdiction under Order XXI Rule 48(3) of CPC.
PNR,J CRP No.3123 of 2022 4
7. However, the pleadings in the E.P., and E.A., are silent as to nature of employment of judgment debtors 2, 3 and 4. It is not stated whether they are employees of the Government or a local body.
8. In the facts and circumstances, I set aside the order of the Court below and remand the matter for consideration of E.A.No.78 of 2021 in E.P.No.462 of 2019 afresh. The petitioner shall file an additional affidavit giving full particulars of employment of judgment debtors 2, 3 and 4. The trial Court shall afford due opportunity to all the parties and pass appropriate orders. Civil Revision Petition is disposed of. Pending miscellaneous applications if any shall stand closed.
___________________________ JUSTICE P.NAVEEN RAO Date: 24.03.2023 Kkm PNR,J CRP No.3123 of 2022 5 HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE P.NAVEEN RAO CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO.3123 OF 2022 Date: 24.03.2023 kkm