Karam Babu Rao vs Baddi Srisailam
2021 Latest Caselaw 3524 Tel

            THE HONOURABLE JUSTICE G. SRI DEVI

                          C.R.P.No.1036 of 2021

ORDER:

The petitioner, who is the Judgment Debtor No.1, filed the

present Civil Revision Petition under Article 227 of the Constitution

of India, aggrieved by the order, dated 08.04.2021, passed in

E.P.No.6 of 2017 in M.V.O.P.No.360 of 2012 on the file of the Motor

Accidents Claims Tribunal-cum-V-Additional District Judge,

Kothagudem, wherein the learned Judge ordered attachment of

salary of the petitioner/Judgment Debtor No.1.

The facts, which led to filing of the present Civil Revision

Petition, are as under:

The respondent/D.Hr filed M.V.O.P.No.360 of 2012 against

the petitioner and the Insurance company for grant of

compensation and a decree was passed on 12.03.2015 in favour of

the respondent herein for a sum of Rs.5,07,370/- with interest

thereon @ 7.5% per annum from the date of petition till the date of

realisation with costs and the claim against the Insurance company

was dismissed. Since the petitioner failed to pay the said amount,

the respondent/decree holder filed E.P.No.3 of 2015, seeking

issuance of order of arrest of the petitioner and to send him to civil

prison, but the said E.P. was dismissed on 19.04.2017. Though the

petitioner being a Government Servant working as Village Revenue

Officer at Manuguru, and having sufficient means to pay the

decretal amount, intentionally avoiding to pay the same. As such,

the respondent herein filed E.P.No.6 of 2017, seeking attachment of

the salary of the petitioner to the credit of the above E.P., till

realisation of the decretal amount. After considering the material

available on record, the Court below issued salary attachment

warrant under Order 21, Rule 48 of C.P.C., vide order, dated

08.04.2021. Challenging the same, the present Civil Revision

Petition is filed by the Judgment Debtor No.1.

Heard the learned Counsel appearing for the

petitioner/Judgment Debtor No.1, learned Counsel appearing for

the respondent/Decree Holder and perused the record.

The main argument of the learned Counsel appearing for the

petitioner is that the Court below, without having power and

jurisdiction, has passed the salary attachment order with a direction

to the Tahsildar, Mandal Revenue Officer, Bhadrachalam, to

withhold a sum of Rs.7,13,631.82 ps., from the salary of the

petitioner, who is working in Scheduled Area, and the same is

contrary to Rule 35 of the Telangana Agency Rules, 1924. He

further submits that as per Rule 35 of the Telangana Agency Rules,

1924, it is mandatory that the decree passed by the Court situated

outside the Agency Tracts shall forward the copy of the same to the

Agent to the Government for its execution, but in the instant case,

the decree is not forwarded by the Court below to the Agent to the

Government and as such passing of the impugned order is totally

arbitrary and illegal. In support of his contentions, he relied upon

the judgments of this Court in Puligujju Vasantha Rao v. M/s.

Shriram City Union Finance Limited, Bhadrachalam, rep. by it's

Authorised Signatory and another1 and P.Ramakrishna and

another v. M/s. Shriram City Union Finance Limited,

Bhadrachalam, rep. by its Authorised Signatory and G.P.A. Holder,

V.Vasudeva Rao2.

Learned Counsel appearing for the respondent/Decree

Holder would submit that the direction given to the employer of

the petitioner to attach the salary of the petitioner does not in any

manner relate to the agency tracts merely by reason that the

petitioner is working in the agency area, Rule 35 of Telangana

Agency Rules, would not get attracted. In support of his

contention, he relied on the judgment of this Court in

C.R.P.No.1554 of 2012, dated 29.03.20212 (Pilli Rambabu v.

Sirasani Srikanth Vinay Kumar). It is further submitted that it is

very clear from the Order 21 Rule 48 of C.P.C. that the Court shall

order for the attachment of salary of a person whether the

Judgment Debtor or the Disbursing Officer is or is not within the

local limits of the Court's jurisdiction. It is also submitted that with

an intention to avoid the payment of the decretal amount, the

petitioner preferred the present Civil Revision Petition and the

petitioner did not come to the Court with clean hands and as such,

(2013) 2 ALT 263 (D.B.)

(2013) 3 ALT 143

the Civil Revision Petition cannot be entertained and prayed to

dismiss the same.

While dealing with the identical situation, this Court in

C.R.P.No. 1554 of 2012, held as under:-

"The petitioner has questioned this Order on the ground that the civil Court has no jurisdiction to issue an order of attachment straight away without following Rule 35 of the A.P. Agency Rules, 1924 (for short 'the Rules'), as the petitioner is resident of agency area. After hearing Sri Nagesh Bhimapalka, learned Counsel for the petitioner, I am of the opinion that Rule 35 of the Rules, which enjoins that the Court issuing the decree shall forward the decree and a copy of the judgment in the suit to the agent to the State Government for execution, applies only to cases where the execution is in relation to attachment of immovable property situated within the agency tracts. The obvious intention behind making such stipulation is to ensure that no immovable property situated within the agency tracts is attached or sold without the same being brought to the notice of the agent. This is obviously with a view to protect the interests of the tribals, who may directly or indirectly be connected with the immovable property situated within the agency tracts. In the instant case, the subject matter of attachment is the salary of the petitioner, who is a non-tribal. The direction is given to the petitioner's employer, who is the Depot Manager, of APSRTC. The attachment does not in any manner relate to the agency tracts. Merely by reason of the borrower living in the agency area, Rule 35 does not get attracted. In the dispute between two non-tribals, totally unrelated to the immovable property situated within the agency area, the agency laws will not get attracted."

Rule 35 of Telangana Agency Rules, 1924 applies only to the

cases where the execution is in relation to attachment of immovable

property situated within the agency tracts and the obvious

intention behind making such stipulation is to ensure that no

immovable property situated within the agency tracts is attached or

sold without the same being brought to the notice of the agent. In

the instant case, the subject matter is attachment of salary of the

petitioner and the direction is given to the employer of the

petitioner to attach the petitioner's salary subject to the provisions

of Section 60 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 and that the

attachment does not in any manner relate to the agency tracts.

Merely by reason of the petitioner working in the Agency Area,

Rule 35 of the Agency Rules does not get attracted. It is also not in

dispute that the decree was passed against the petitioner herein and

that the said decree has become final as it has not been challenged.

The judgments relied upon by the learned Counsel for the

petitioner relate to the attachment of movable property situated in

agency area, but in the instant case the Court below issued salary

attachment warrant, and as such the judgments are not applicable

to the facts and circumstances of the present case.

Having regard to the aforesaid facts and circumstances of the

case, I am of the considered opinion that there is no illegality or

jurisdictional error in the order passed by the Court below and that

there are no grounds warranting interference of this Court.

Accordingly, the Civil Revision Petition is dismissed. No

order as to costs. Miscellaneous Petitions pending, if any, shall

stand closed.

_____________________ JUSTICE G. SRI DEVI 17.11.2021 Gsn/gkv