Telangana High Court

Gugulothu Venkanna vs Rajesh Lai Sahu on 17 August, 2022

Bench: G.Radha Rani

            THE HON'BLE Dr. JUSTICE G. RADHA RANI

             CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.711 OF 2022

ORDER:

This revision petition is filed by the petitioner-J.Dr. aggrieved by the

docket order dated 26.02.2022 passed in E.P. No.23 of 2021 in O.S. No.10

of 2013 on the file of the Agent to Government, Bhadradri Kothagudem

District.

2. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner-J.Dr. and the learned

counsel for the 1st respondent-D.Hr.

3. The learned counsel for the revision petitioner submitted that the

order under revision was contrary to law and probabilities of the case. It

was a non-speaking order. The court failed to appreciate that the said two

provisions under which the respondent-D.Hr.-plaintiff filed the EP in

question under Order XXI Rule 48 of CPC read with Rule - 31 of the A.P.

Agency Rules, 1924 (for short 'Agency Rules') were not applicable to the

case of the petitioner herein who was a private employee. The relevant

provision was under Order XXI Rule 48 (A) CPC. Order XXI Rule 48 of

CPC was not applicable, as it was applicable only to sale of immovable

properties, but the impugned order was issued for attachment of petitioner's

salary. Rule 31 of the Agency Rules was also not applicable. Hence, order Dr.GRR,J

under revision passed by the court below was totally without application of

mind. The impugned orders resulted in mis-carriage of justice and hence,

the same were liable to be set aside. He further contended that the original

court transferred the decree for execution to the Court of the Agent to

Government. The Agent to Government had to renumber the EP for

execution, but the court below did not renumber it and continued with the

same number, which was not permissible under law and the order was

liable to be set aside on the said ground also.

4. The learned counsel for the respondent-D.Hr., on the other hand,

contended that Rule 31 of the Agency Rules would speak about execution

of decrees and orders and the power was vested in the court to order

execution of decree in such other manner as the nature of the relief granted

might require under Rule 31 (e). Unless the provisions sought to be applied

were not inconsistent with any express provisions of the Act, the same

could be applied. Wrong quoting of a provision would not require any

interference of this Court to set aside the said order and submitted that the

salary of the J.Dr. was already attached and prayed to dismiss the revision

petition.

Dr.GRR,J

5. Perused the record. The record would disclose that the

respondent-D.Hr. filed an Execution Petition before the court of the Agent

to Government (District Collector), Kothagudem at Bhadrachalam

Kothagudem under Order XXI Rule 48 CPC read with Rule 31 of the

Agency Rules seeking warrant of attachment of the salary of the J.Dr. It

was submitted that O.S. No.123 of 2008 was decreed by the Principal

Senior Civil Judge, Kothagudem and decree was passed for an amount of

Rs.1,97,270/- including costs and interest on the principal amount of

Rs.1,00,000/-. The Judgment Debtor was working as a Fitter in the Utility

Department, P.No.2138, ITC, PSPD and was stated to be receiving a salary

of Rs.60,000/- per month apart from other perks and was also having

movable and immovable properties. Having sufficient means to pay the

decreetal amount to the decree holder, he failed to pay the same, as such

sought for attachment of his salary. Vide impugned order dated 26.02.2022,

the Agent to Government recorded that:

"DHr and his counsel present. JDr absent and his counsel present. Counter filed. Heard both counsels. Attach the salary of the JDr subject to Section 60 CPC. Call on 22.04.2022."

6. The contention of the learned counsel for the revision petitioner

was that no reasoning was assigned while issuing order for attachment of

salary. It was a non-speaking order. The J.Dr. filed counter in EP No.23 of Dr.GRR,J

2021 before the Court contending that the D.Hr. had no locus standi to file

the EP against the J.Dr. for recovery of wages as the J.Dr. was residing in

the agency area and the procedure under Rule - 35 of the Agency Rules

would need to be followed and the D.Hr. failed to follow the procedure

prescribed under Rule - 35 of the Agency Rules. He also stated that

previously the D.Hr. filed two EPs to recover the wages of the J.Dr. and the

recovery was not effected due to technical reasons and the EP was not

maintainable. The record would disclose that the EP was transferred from

the Court of Principal Senior Civil Judge, Kothagudem to the Court of

Agent to Government. But without renumbering it, the same was

continued with the same number as on the file of the Principal Senior Civil

Judge, Kothagudem.

7. Rule - 35 of the A.P. Agency Rules, 1924 reads as under:

"35.Where it is sought to execute within the Agency tracts a decree passed by a Court in India situated outside the said tracts, the court issuing the decree shall forward the decree and a copy of the judgment in the suit to the Agent to State Government who shall cause the decree to be executed in the manner provided by these rules for the execution of a decree passed by him."

8. The learned counsel for the petitioner-J.Dr. appears to be taking

some or other grounds to see that the recovery was not effected. Quoting a

wrong provisions of law as under Order XXI Rule 48 CPC instead of Order Dr.GRR,J

XXI Rule 48(A) on the ground that Order XXI Rule 48 CPC is pertaining

to attachment of salary of the Government Employee and Rule - 48 (A) is

pertaining to attachment of salary of a private employee and that the

applicable provision under Agency Rules is Rule 35 but not Rule 31 is not

a ground to set aside the order of attachment. The order cannot be vitiated

on such technical grounds. Both the D.Hr. and the J.Dr. are residents of

Bhadrachalam Kothagudem District and the Officer, who needs to deduct

the E.P. amount by way of attachment of salary of J.Dr. was also within the

jurisdiction of Bhadradri Kothagudem District. It was not the case of the