Kambalapalli Rama Chandra Reddy Vs Beeram Rama Subba Reddy(Died)

The Civil Revision Petition is filed under Section 115 of C.P.C. challenging the order dated 11.02.2025 allowing the E.P.No.8 of 2024 in O.S.No.4 of 2019 on the file of the Court of Principal Civil Judge (Senior Division), Nandyal, filed for realisation of decreetal amount for attachment of salary of the J.Dr.

¶19

By the impugned order, execution Court directed issue of warrant for attachment of 1/3^rd salary of the J.Dr. after deduction of Rs.1,000/- subject to Section 60 of C.P.C.

¶20

Aggrieved by the order, revision petitioner / J.Dr. contended that inspite of the submissions made before the execution Court

¶21

2 C.R.P.No.637 of 2025

¶22

that there existed other warrants issued in execution petition for realisation of other decrees before other Courts, the impugned order was passed. The learned counsel for the revision petitioner further submitted that unless a period of 12 months elapsed after realisation of the decreetal amount under the previous warrant attachments for the period of 24 months, fresh attachment of salary cannot be made for realisation of the decreetal amount in the present decree. Therefore, he contended that the impugned order is invalid. In this regard, he placed reliance on decision of this Court in Shaik Noorjahan Vs. M.Rajeshwari¹ .

¶23

The execution Court considered the same objection and made following observations at para Nos.10 and 11 of its order which reads as under:

¶24

“10. Be that as it may be, after institution of this EP, this Court called for salary particulars of the J.Dr. from his Garnishee. This Court received salary particulars of the J.Dr on 18.09.2024 from this garnishee. The salary pay slips for the month of August, 2018 (1.8.2024 to 31.8.2024) is furnished to this Court. In which the J.Dr has been drawing Rs.1,53,188/- of gross salary. Total deductions are Rs.15,560/-. Out of which Rs.15,000/- amount has been deducting towards income tax deductions. Then he had been drawing Rs.1,37,628/- of net salary per month. If really, prior attachment have been deducting by the Garnishee ie., Head Master, Municipal Corporation high School (main), Kurnool-1, it might have noted in the salary

¶25

1 AIR 2010 AP 207

¶26

3 C.R.P.No.637 of 2025

¶27

particulars furnished to this Court by his garnishee. Neither the said deduction is noted nor specifically stated about the above case numbers in the latter of Garnishee. When no deductions are deducting from the salary of the J.Dr, the contention of the J.Dr. that already his salary has been deducting in four cases has no consideration. As such, the contention of the learned counsel for the J.Dr is not sustainable.”

¶28

“11. On the other hand, the decree holders have been waiting for the fruits of the decree. In view of the same, their rights has to be protected. Hence, there are merits in allowing this application.”

¶29

Finally, the operative part of the impugned order at para 12 reads as follows.

¶30

“12. In the result, EP is allowed. Issue salary attachment warrant for attachment of 1/3^rd salary of the J.Dr by deducting Rs.1,000/- mandatory deductions subject to Section 60 of C.P.C on payment of process by 18.03.2025. Accordingly, the petition is disposed off.”

¶31

Therefore, the impugned order indicates that the objection raised by the J.Dr. has been duly addressed by directing the D.D.O. to follow Section 60 of the C.P.C. Consequently, if there were previous attachments lasting for 24 months, the D.D.O. is mandated to observe a minimum gap of 12 months without attachment. If the D.D.O. fails to observe this condition, the J.Dr. is at liberty to inform the same to the execution Court and seek

¶32

4 C.R.P.No.637 of 2025

¶33

necessary direction to the D.D.O. by calling for the particulars of the deductions made from the salary of the J.Dr. prior to the order dated 11.02.2025 in this E.P. and give further directions to comply the order strictly in accordance with Section 60 C.P.C. With these observations, the civil revision petition is disposed of. No costs.

¶34

Interim orders granted earlier, if any, shall stand vacated.

¶35

Pending miscellaneous applications, if any, shall stand closed.

¶36

________________________ Justice B.S.Bhanumathi

¶37

Date: 08.07.2025 RSD

¶38

5 C.R.P.No.637 of 2025

¶39

175