Partly allowed

Thandeva Balaiah v. Kalla Venkata Narayana

Telangana HC25 Aug 2011CRP/40/2011

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a civil revision petition challenging an executing court's order attaching the petitioner's salary under Section 60 C.P.C., the court held that the trial court failed to fix a specific amount. The revision was partly allowed, directing the deduction of Rs. 5,000 from the petitioner's salary instead of the entire salary.

What did the court decide?

Modification of the attachment order to deduct a sum of Rs. 5,000 from the petitioner's salary instead of the entire salary subject to Section 60 C.P.C.

Thandeva Balaiah Vs Kalla Venkata Narayana — Execution and Attachment | Telangana HC (2011)

¶1

THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE L.NARASIMHA REDDY

¶2

CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.40 of 2011

¶3

ORDER:

¶4

The respondent filed O.S.No.138 of 1999 in the Court of the Junior Civil Judge, Darsi against the petitioner for recovery of amount on the basis of a promissory note. The suit was decreed on 31.03.2003. The decree became final, but the petitioner did not pay the amount. The respondent filed E.P.No.2 of 2009. The efforts made by the executing Court to serve notice upon the petitioner did not fructify. Ultimately, through order, dated 28.07.2010, the executing Court directed attachment of the entire salary subject to Section 60 C.P.C. The petitioner feels aggrieved by the said order.

¶5

Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned counsel for the respondent.

¶6

The petitioner does not dispute the obligation under the decree. The objection raised by him to the order under revision is that the prescribed procedure was not followed. A perusal of the docket proceedings discloses that the E.P., which was filed in the year 2008, has undergone several adjournments and the respondent was not able to recover even a single rupee on the basis of the decree passed way back in the year 2003. This is not the case where the hyper-technicalities pleaded by the petitioner can be taken into account. Had there been any bona fides on the part of the petitioner, he ought to have paid some amount or the other, or prayed for instalments before the Court concerned. One fact, however, which impresses this Court, is that the trial Court

¶7

ought to have undertaken the exercise to fix the amount instead of straightaway ordering attachment subject to Section 60 C.P.C. It will be difficult for any agency to arrive at a figure on the strength of such general directions. To clear that doubt, this Court is of the view that a sum of Rs.5,000/- can be recovered from the petitioner.

¶8

Hence, the civil revision petition is partly allowed modifying the order under revision to the effect that a sum of Rs.5,000/(Rupees five thousand only) shall be deducted from the salary of the petitioner and paid to the credit of the decree with effect from September, 2011. The respondent shall be entitled to withdraw the amount as and when credited to the decree, without furnishing any security. There shall be n order as to costs.

¶9

_____________________ L.NARASIMHA REDDY,J Dt:25.08.2011.

¶10

kdl

Thandeva Balaiah v. Kalla Venkata Narayana

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Thandeva Balaiah v. Kalla Venkata Narayana

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

Lankapalli Satya Rao Vs The Commissioner and Director

Avuluri Venkata Ramanamma Vs The District Collector and Chairman

Kilari Venkaiah Vs Kilari Venu

M.Subramanyam, Vs Sapathagiri Grameena Bank, (Sponsored by Indian Bank)

Galla Srihari Babu Vs The food Corporation of India, Rep.byits

Dasari Mukundam Vs Vice Chairman and MAnaging Director