Telangana High Court
Gunda Sathaiah vs Karnakanti Narsimha Chary, on 29 January, 2024
Author: Surepalli Nanda
Bench: Surepalli Nanda
IN THE HIGH COURT OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD
CRP NO.2854 of 2023
Between:
Gunda Sathaiah
... Petitioner
And
Karnakanti Narsimha Chary and others
... Respondents
JUDGMENT PRONOUNCED ON: 29.01.2024
THE HON'BLE MRS JUSTICE SUREPALLI NANDA
1. Whether Reporters of Local newspapers : Yes
may be allowed to see the Judgment?
2. Whether the copies of judgment may be
marked to Law Reporters/Journals? : Yes
3. Whether Their Lordships wish to
see the fair copy of the Judgment? : Yes
_________________
SUREPALLI NANDA, J
2
THE HON'BLE MRS JUSTICE SUREPALLI NANDA
CRP NO.2854 of 2023
% 29.01.2024
Between:
# Gunda Sathaiah
..... Petitioner
And
$ Karnakanti Narsimha Chary and others
... Respondents
< Gist:
> Head Note:
!Counsel for the Petitioner: Mr Arunkumar Doddla
l
^ Counsel for Respondents : Mr P.Ajith Varma
3
THE HON'BLE MRS JUSTICE SUREPALLI NANDA
CRP NO.2854 of 2023
ORDER:
Heard Mr Arunkumar Doddla, learned counsel
appearing on behalf of the petitioner and Mr P.Ajith
Varma, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the
respondents.
2. This civil revision petition is filed challenging the
propriety and legality of the order dated 23-08-2023 in
I.A.No.703/2023 in O.S.No 141 of 2020, whereby the Court of
Principal Junior Civil Judge, Mancherial dismissed the petition
filed under Order 38 Rule 5 of C.P.C. filed by the
petitioner/plaintiff.
3. For the sake of convenience, the parties herein are
referred to as they are arrayed in the suit before the lower
Court.
4. The plaintiff filed the suit against the defendants for
recovery of Rs.12,32,000/- on the strength of promissory
note dated 15-06-2018 for Rs.8 lakhs allegedly executed by
the defendant.
5. The defendant filed written statement denying the suit
claim of the plaintiff contending that he neither borrowed the
alleged debt nor executed the suit promissory note..
6. Subsequent to the filing of the suit, the plaintiff filed
I.A.No.703 of 2023 under Order 38 Rule 5 CPC against the
defendant, the officials of Singareni Colleries Company
Limited at Srirampur and the Branch Manager of Union Bank
of India at Narsapur. The contention of the petitioner/plaintiff
is that the first respondent /defendant worked in Singareni
Colleries Company Limited and retired from service on
15.07.2023 and that he does not own and possess any
immovable properties, but he is going to get retiral benefits
from his company and the amount of the retiral benefits
would be credited to his account in the Union Bank of India
Branch at Narsapur. It is also his contention that in case the
first respondent/defendant is allowed to receive the service
benefits, he will shift his residence and consequently it
becomes difficult to recover the suit amount and so out of the
amount of terminal benefits an amount of Rs.12,32,000/-
may be attached before judgment and that no prejudice is
caused to the first respondent, if the amount is attached as
per Section 60 CPC.
7. The first respondent/defendant filed counter denying the
claim of the petitioner/plaintiff for attachment before
judgment and contended that he is a reputed person and has
sufficient means and that the petitioner/plaintiff falsely filed
the suit only to harass him. He also contended that in case,
the attachment is ordered, he would be put to irreparable loss
which cannot be compensated by any other means.
8. The lower Court after considering the material on record
by the impugned order. dismissed the petition. Feeling
aggrieved thereby, the petitioner/plaintiff filed the present
Civil Revision Petition.
9. The learned counsel for the petitioner by relying
upon the decision of the erstwhile common High Court
of Andhra Pradesh in Ananthula Buchiramulu vs
Sakinala Janakiramaiah reported in 2004(2) ALD
730,contends that the lower Court in view of that
decision, ought to have attached the terminal benefits
of the 1st respondent/defendant. The learned counsel
for the 1st respondent/defendant, on the other hand,
contends that in view of the proviso (g) to Section
60(1) CPC the amount of terminal benefits is not liable
for attachment.In support of the same, the petitioner
placed reliance upon the judgment of the Supreme
Court of India dated 04.11.2008 in Civil Appeal Nos,
6440-41 of 2008 in the case of Radhey Shyam Gupta vs
Punjab National Bank and another.
PERUSED THE RECORD
10. The question, whether the first respondent
borrowed the debt and executed the suit promissory
note or not is an issue to be decided after a full fledged
trial. The undisputed fact is that the first
respondent/defendant worked in Singareni Colleries
Company Limited and retired from service and he would
get terminal benefits. Undisputedly, the amount sought
to be attached is a portion of the terminal benefits
payable to the first respondent/defendant. The Hon'ble
Supreme Court in Radhey Shyam Gupta supra held that
retiral benefits such as pension and gratuity are not
liable for attachment in view of the Proviso(g) to
Section 60(1) CPC and that even after payment of the
retiral benefits to the employee concerned they would
continue to be covered by the Proviso(g) to Section
60(1) CPC.The decision in Ananthula Buchi Ramulu
supra is not applicable to the present case, because the
property sought to be attached was shares of the
defendant in cine theatre business, whereas in the
present case, the amount sought to be attached is the
service benefits of the 1st respondent/defendant. The
claim of the petitioner for attachment is not sustainable
for the simple reason that the amount of service
benefits of the 1st respondent/defendant is not liable
for attachment in view of the Proviso (g) to Section
60(1) CPC.
11. In view of the above, this court does not find any
irregularity or impropriety in the order dated 23-08-2023
passed in I.A.No.703/2023 in O.S.No 141 of 2020, by the
Court of Principal Junior Civil Judge, Mancherial and
accordingly the Civil Revision Petition is dismissed.
Miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending shall stand
closed.
__________________
SUREPALLI NANDA, J
Dated: 29.01.2024
Note: L.R. copy to be marked
b/o
kvrm
