Palaka Suresh vs Palaka Sunayana Grace And Others
2024 Latest Caselaw 10462 AP

Citation : 2024 Latest Caselaw 10462 AP
Judgement Date : 19 November, 2024

Andhra Pradesh High Court - Amravati

Palaka Suresh vs Palaka Sunayana Grace And Others on 19 November, 2024

 APHC010343502024
                    IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH
                                 AT AMARAVATI              [3330]
                           (Special Original Jurisdiction)


       TUESDAY ,THE NINETEENTH DAY OF NOVEMBER
           TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FOUR

                              PRESENT

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE TARLADA RAJASEKHAR RAO

             CIVIL REVISION PETITION No: 1792/2024

 BETWEEN:

 Palaka Suresh                                      ...Petitioner

                                AND

 Palaka Sunayana Grace and Others              ...Respondent(s)

 Counsel for the Petitioner:

    1. V VIJAYA VARDHAN

 Counsel for the Respondent(S):

    1. TADDI NAGESWARA RAO

 The Court made the following:
                                   2




ORDER:

The present Civil Revision Petition is presented before this

Court being aggrieved by the docket order dated 16.07.2024 in

E.P. No.209 of 2018 in PLC No.16 of 2016, on the file of the

District Judge at Vizianagaram.

2. The Lok Adalat Bench at Saluru, vide its order dated

16.04.2016, directed the petitioner herein (who is the respondent

before the Lok Adalat in PLC 16 of 2016) to pay an amount of

Rs.10,000/- to each of the petitioners 1 and 2 (the children of the

petitioner herein) on or before the 10th day of each succeeding

month.

3. In order to implement the order dated 16.04.2010 in PLC

16 of 2016, on the file of the Lok Adalat Bench at Salur,

petitioners 1 and 2, represented by their guardian grandmother,

filed Execution Petition No. 209 of 2018, on the file of the District

Judge, Vizianagaram, seeking attachment of salary under Order

XXI Rule 48 CPC to realize the amount due under the award.

4. Accordingly, the learned District Judge issued a notice to

the garnishee of the judgment debtor through Court, by registered

post on payment of process, vide order dated 16.07.2024.

5. The present Civil Revision Petition is filed challenging this

order on the grounds that no opportunity was given to the

petitioner herein, who is the respondent in PLC 16 of 2016, and

the authority under legal services authority had no jurisdiction to

deliver such an order and also contended that there was no

authorization from the mother of Respondent Nos. 1 and 2 to file

the Execution Petition before the District Judge, Vizianagaram.

6. Even if an order is void, the party must approach the

appropriate forum to have the order set aside. However, the

petitioner has neither assailed the order nor sought to have it set

aside, and made the order final.

7. As seen from the impugned order, a notice was issued to

the garnishee of the judgment debtor. No adverse order was

made against the petitioner.

8. A notice is required to be issued to the garnishee under

Order XXI Rule 46 A of CPC which reads thus:

The Court may in the case of a debt (other than a debt secured by a mortgage or a charge) which has been

attached under rule 46, upon the application of the attaching creditor, issue notice to the garnishee liable to pay such debt, calling upon him either to pay into Court the debt due from him to the judgment-debtor or so much thereof as may be sufficient to satisfy the decree and costs of execution, or to appear and show cause why he should not do so.

9. Under Order XXI, Rule 46-A of the Civil Procedure Code, in

case, if the garnishee fails to respond to the notice under Order

21, Rule 46-A C.P.C. then only the court is empowered to pass

an Order under Order XXI, Rule 46-B of C.P.C. But when the

garnishee appears and puts forth their objections, the court has to

enquire as to the dispute raised by the garnishee as

contemplated under Order XXI, Rule 46-C of C.P.C.

10. There is no illegality committed by the learned District

Judge in ordering notice under Order XXI Rule 48 of the CPC, as

per the docket order dated 16.07.2024. Therefore, even

assuming that the execution petition E.P. was filed without prior

authorization, no adverse order has been passed against the