Citation : 2023 Latest Caselaw 1405 Tel
Judgement Date : 24 March, 2023
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. 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
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
HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE P.NAVEEN RAO
CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO.3123 OF 2022
Date: 24.03.2023 kkm
Publish Your Article
Campus Ambassador
Media Partner
Campus Buzz
LatestLaws.com presents: Lexidem Offline Internship Program, 2026
LatestLaws.com presents 'Lexidem Online Internship, 2026', Apply Now!