Malleda Appalaswamy Vs Yanduva @ Yinduva Venkata Rao — Andhra Pradesh HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

Malleda Appalaswamy Vs Yanduva @ Yinduva Venkata Rao — Andhra Pradesh HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Liberty to the petitioner/decree holder to initiate a simultaneous execution petition or an execution petition subsequent to the pending execution; no order as to costs.

Issue for consideration

Whether the Execution Court's order dated 28.08.2019 limiting salary attachment to Rs.6,800/- failed to follow the law by giving deductions for the Judgment Debtor's personal loan and his wife's alleged medical needs. +1 more

Court's answer

This Court held that the impugned order of the Execution Court cannot be called one against the procedure; the deductions made in computing the attachable salary were not fatal to it.

Ratio / Principle

Even after considering the merits, the possible attachable amount would not come to great avail of the decree holder, as much larger amounts remain overdue despite the attached portions of salary.

Key takeaways

As the law permits the decree holder to execute simultaneously through other means without detriment, the Civil Revision Petition was dismissed with liberty to initiate a simultaneous execution petition or one subsequent to the pending execution, and without costs.ratio¶8

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

AP High Court at Amaravati (Dr. V R K Krupa Sagar, J), Civil Revision Petition No. 3235/2019, decided 03.03.2025: A money decree in O.S.No.99 of 2017 was being executed through E.P.No.22 of 2019 under Order XXI Rule 48 CPC for attachment of the salary of the Judgment Debtor, an APSRTC employee. By order dated 28.08.2019, the Senior Civil Judge, Bobbili (Executing Court) directed attachment of salary to the tune of Rs.6,800/-, giving deductions for the Judgment Debtor's personal loan and his wife's alleged medical needs. The decree holder revised, contending the Executing Court had failed to follow the law in making those deductions; it was also submitted that the Judgment Debtor would superannuate within two months. Held: even on the merits the attachable sum would not greatly avail the decree holder, as much larger amounts remained overdue despite the attached portions of salary, and the impugned order could not be called one against the procedure. The Civil Revision Petition was dismissed with liberty to the decree holder to initiate a simultaneous execution petition through other means, or an execution petition subsequent to the pending execution; no order as to costs.

APHC010359352019

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI

(Special Original Jurisdiction)

[3365]

MON D AY, THE THIRD DAY OF MARCH TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE

PRESENT

THE HONOURABLE JUSTICE DR V R K KRUPA SAGAR

CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO: 3235/2019

Between:

Malleda Appalaswamy ...PETITIONER

AND

Yanduva Yinduva Venka t a Rao ...RESPONDENT Counsel for the Petitioner:

1.M/S BHASKARI A D VOCATES

Counsel for the Respondent:

2

The Court made the following Order:

Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner, who appeared online and made necessary submissions.

The decree holder is the revision petitioner in this revision.

The suit in O.S.No.99 of 2017 was a money decree. The decree holder initiated execution by filing E.P.No.22 of 2019 under Order XXI Rule 48 CPC seeking attachment of salary of the Judgment Debtor, who happens to be an employee in APSRTC.

After due hearing, in the order dated 28.08.2019, the learned Execution Court/Senior Civil Judge, Bobbili, directed attachment of salary to a tune of Rs.6,800/-. The decree holder raised a challenge in this revision stating that while arriving at the attachable amount of salary, the Executing Court failed to follow the law and gave deduction concerning personal loan and alleged medical needs of the wife of the judgment debtor, which it has not supposed to. However, the very fair submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that the judgment debtor would be superannuating from service in the next two months.

Perused the material on record.

It is seen that even after considering the merits in the matter,

the possible amount is calculated, it would not come to great avail of

3

the decree holder as much larger amounts are still overdue, despite the attached portions of salary.

In such circumstances, as the law permits the decree holder to initiate simultaneous execution petition through other means without causing detriment to the merits made available in this revision, this Court considers that the order impugned cannot be called as one against the procedure.

Under these circumstances, this Civil Revision Petition is dismissed, granting liberty to the petitioner/decree holder to initiate simultaneous execution petition or execution petition subsequent to pending execution. There shall be no order as to costs.

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

stand closed.

_________________________ Dr. V R K KRUPA SAGAR, J

Dated: 03.03.2025 MDP