Gurram Srinivas vs M/S Shriram City Union Finance ...
2023 Latest Caselaw 2840 Tel

                                   1

                                                                   PSS, J.
                                                            CRP.No.2407 of 2023



       HONOURABLE SMT. JUSTICE P. SREE SUDHA

         CIVIL REVISION PETITION No. 2407 OF 2023

ORDER:

This Civil Revision Petition is filed by the revision

petitioner/Judgment debtor No.2 aggrieved by the order dated

13.07.2023 in E.P.No.674 of 2018 for implementation of the award

passed in Arbitration Case No.69 of 2012 on the file of the Judge,

Family Court-cum-III Additional District Judge, Nalgonda.

2. Learned counsel for the revision petitioner submitted that the

Court below has no jurisdiction to execute the award dated

28.10.2013 on the ground that the disbursing officer and the revision

petitioner/Judgment Debtor No.2 are residing and working in

Hyderabad. Therefore, the salary attachment order dated 13.07.2023

is not binding on the petitioner/J.Dr No.2 as it was passed without

following the procedure laid down under Order XXXIX Rule (4) of Code

of Civil Procedure, 1908. The Court below failed to serve notice of EP

on the revision petitioner/J.Dr No.2. Respondent/Claimant filed EP

against J.Dr No.2 with a malafide intention and it was not ensured by

the trial Court whether notice was issued to JDR No.2 or not before

issuing the salary attachment. Therefore, he requested this Court to

set aside the impugned order passed by the Court below.

PSS, J.

CRP.No.2407 of 2023

3. Arbitration Case No.69 of 2012 was filed by M/s.Shriram City

Union Finance Limited (respondent/Decree Holder) and the Arbitrator

vide order dated 28.10.2023 passed an amount of Rs.2,49,633/- in

favour of the Chit Fund company and held that the claimant is

entitled to recover the said amount along with interest. Basing on the

said award, the respondent/D.Hr filed E.P.No.674 of 2018 seeking to

attach the salary of the revision petitioner/J.Dr.No.2

4. The contention of the revision petitioner is that no notice was

served upon him in E.P as well as in the award. The Ex.A7 is the office

copy of notice-cum-Arbitration Notice dt.12.10.2011 issued by the

claimant to the respondent. Ex.A8 is the acknowledgment received

from respondent Nos.1 and 2 for the legal notice-cum-Arbitration

notice dated 12.10.2011. Even in the award, it was mentioned that

notices were sent by hand and registered post on 17.08.2013. So also

in the EP, it was mentioned that notices were sent and they were given

acknowledgment, as such, the contention of the petitioner cannot be

accepted.

5. Petitioner herein is the 2nd respondent. He along with

3rd respondent gave surety to the 1st respondent and the 1st

respondent failed to pay the amount and as such salary attachment

was ordered against 2nd respondent. Therefore, this Court finds no

PSS, J.

CRP.No.2407 of 2023

reason to set aside the impugned order. The question of jurisdiction

has to be raised at the earliest point of time before the arbitrator, but

not in the EP proceedings. Therefore, the argument of the Revision

Petitioner cannot be accepted.

6. In the result, the Civil Revision Petition is dismissed confirming

the order of the trial Court passed in E.P.No.674 of 2018 dated

13.07.2023. There shall be no order as to costs.

As a sequel, miscellaneous applications pending, if any, shall

stand disposed of.

____________________________ JUSTICE P. SREE SUDHA

Dt:03.10.2023 Krl