Dismissed

Penchala Mallaiah v. Ramidi Shanker Reddy

Telangana HC20 Oct 2009CRP/4517/2009

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Andhra Pradesh, Hyderabad, in a civil revision petition, considered a challenge to an order directing attachment of amounts payable to the judgment debtor. The Court held that the impugned order complied with Section 60 of the CPC as it limited attachment to the suit amount and guaranteed payment of the surplus to the debtor. The revision was dismissed.

What did the court decide?

Civil Revision Petition No. 4517 of 2009 dismissed, confirming the impugned order dated 25.02.2009.

Penchala Mallaiah Vs Ramidi Shanker Reddy — Execution and Attachment | Telangana HC (2009)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD

¶2

(Special Original Jurisdiction)

¶3

TUESDAY, THE TWENTIETH DAY OF OCTOBER TWO THOUSAND AND NINE

¶4

PRESENT:

¶5

THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE K.C.BHANU

¶6

CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.4517 OF 2009

¶7

Between:

¶8

Penchala Mallaiah

¶9

… Petitioner/Respondent/Defendant No.1

¶10

AND

¶11

1. Ramidi Shanker Reddy

¶12

2. The General Manager, RG.II, Singareni Collieries Co., Ltd., 8, Incline Colony, Kamanpur Mandal, Karimnagar.

¶13

3. The Colliery Manager, GDK-9 Incline, 8 Incline Colony, Kamanpur Mandal, Karimnagar.

¶14

4. The Manager, State Bank of Hyderabad, Jilaram Branch, 8 Incline Colony, Kamanpur Mandal, Karimnagar District.

¶15

… Respondents/Respondents/Defendants

¶16

The Court made the following :

¶17

ORDER:

¶18

The revision, under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, is directed against the order, dated 25.02.2009, made in I.A.No.607 of 2008 in O.S.No.23 of 2008, on the file of the learned Senior Civil Judge, Manthani, Karimnagar District, in ordering fresh attachment with a specific direction to Respondent Nos.2 and 3 to attach an amount of Rs.2,02,500/- and the remaining amount, if any, attached shall be payable to Respondent No.1 and further ordering that the attachment was subject to Section 60 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (for short, ‘C.P.C.’).

¶19

2. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner/defendant No.1.

¶20

3. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner herein contended that there is no allegation that the petitioner herein is trying to conceal the amount; that under Section 60 of C.P.C. amount cannot be attached and therefore, he prays to set aside the impugned order, dated 25.02.2009.

¶21

4. The impugned order, dated 25.02.2009, clearly states that the attachment is subject to Section 60 of C.P.C. There cannot be any dispute that certain amounts payable to judgment debtor under Section 60 of C.P.C. are not liable for attachment. Therefore, the apprehension of the petitioner herein that the gratuity amount has been attached cannot be accepted. Only to the extent of the suit amount has been attached and the remaining amount has been ordered to be paid to the petitioner herein. Therefore, the impugned order, dated 25.02.2009, does not suffer from any

¶22

infirmities so as to call for interference by this Court. Hence, the Civil Revision Petition is devoid of merit and is liable to be dismissed.

¶23

16. Accordingly, the Civil Revision Petition is dismissed confirming the order, dated 25.02.2009, made in I.A.No.607 of 2008 in O.S.No.23 of 2008, on the file of the learned Senior Civil Judge, Manthani, Karimnagar District. There shall be no order as to costs.

¶24

_______________ (K.C. BHANU, J

¶25

Date: 20^th October, 2009

¶26

Penchala Mallaiah v. Ramidi Shanker Reddy

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Penchala Mallaiah v. Ramidi Shanker Reddy

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

The State of A.P. Vs Madava Mahanti Srinivas

Gotru Srivenkata Adinarayana Rao, Vs The State

G.Ravinder Rao, Vs State of A.P.

G. Madhusudana Rao Vs State

Khantamananeni Basava Purramma Vs Sk.Khasimbee

The State of a.P., Through the Food Inspector, Gram Vs Siram Rammohana Rao