Disposed

D.Venkat Kishan Rao, v. Central Bank of India, Hanumakonda

Telangana HC27 Jan 2011CRP/6179/2004

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This court disposed of a Civil Revision Petition challenging an attachment order on salary. Upholding the lower court's decision that the attachment amount was reasonable, the court directed the petitioner to continue depositing Rs.500/- monthly towards the decree satisfaction without passing fresh orders on merits. The interim stay condition was maintained. No order as to costs.

What did the court decide?

Petitioner directed to continue depositing Rs.500/- per month on or before 5th of every month towards execution petition decree satisfaction.

D.Venkat Kishan Rao, Vs Central Bank of India… — Execution and Attachment | Telangana HC (2011)

¶1

THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G.V.SEETHAPATHY

¶2

CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.6179 OF 2004

¶3

DATED: 27-01-2011

¶4

Between:

¶5

D.Venkat Kishan Rao.

¶6

.... PETITIONER

¶7

And

¶8

The Central Bank of India, Rep.by its Branch Manager, Hanamkonda.

¶9

.... RESPONDENT

¶10

ORDER:

¶11

This Civil Revision Petition is directed against the order, dated 16-08-2004, in E.A.No.178 of 2004 in E.P.No.517 of 2003 in O.S.No.1115 of 2002 on the file of the learned Principal Junior Civil Judge, Warangal District, wherein the said application filed by the petitioner hereinjudgment-debtor for raising the attachment over his salary, was dismissed.

¶12

2. None appeared for the respondent. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner. Perused the record.

¶13

3. As seen from the record, the respondent-bank filed a suit against the petitioner for recovery of the amounts due and the decree was passed for a sum of Rs.47,305/. Respondent-decree-holder filed E.P.No.517 of 2003, seeking realization of the decretal amount by way of attachment of the salary of the petitioner-judgment-debtor @ Rs.2000/- per month. Petitioner-judgment-debtor is stated to be working as Senior Assistant in the office of the Assistant Commissioner of Labour, Hanmakonda. According to the decree-holder, the salary of the

¶14

judgment-debtor was Rs.9000/- per month. Judgmentdebtor filed E.A.No.178 of 2004 for raising the attachment order, to reduce the amount of instalment on the ground that there are already two other attachments in force against his salary. The Execution Court dismissed that application observing that the salary attachment warrant issued by the Court was earlier in point of time than the other attachments and therefore the same prioritized for execution. After taking into consideration the salary drawn by the petitioner-judgment-debtor and also the deductions made in the salary, the Execution Court confirmed the attachment ordered earlier to the extent of Rs.500/- per month.

¶15

4. Having regard to the fact that the petitionerjudgment-debtor was working as Senior Assistant in Government service even by 2003 and even according to him he was getting salary of Rs.9000/- per month, it cannot be said that the amount of Rs.500/- per month, directed to be recovered from the salary of the judgmentdebtor by way of attachment, is excessive or unreasonable. This Court, by interim order, dated 17-12-2004, in C.M.P.No.16288 of 2004, granted interim stay, subject to the condition that the petitioner deposits Rs.500/- per month before 5^th of every month to the credit of the Execution Petition. On 21-03-2005, it was

¶16

represented that the interim order was being complied with by making the deposit as directed.

¶17

5. In the circumstances, it is considered that no further orders are required to be passed on merits in the interim order, dated 17-12-2004, except that the petitionerjudgment-debtor be directed to continue to deposit the sum of Rs.500/- per month on or before 5^th of every month to the credit of the Execution Petition, as directed earlier till the decree is fully satisfied.

¶18

6. Civil Revision Petition is disposed of with the above direction. There shall be no order as to costs.

¶19

_______________________ G.V.SEETHAPATHY, J

¶20

27^th January, 2011. Tsy

D.Venkat Kishan Rao, v. Central Bank of India, Hanumakonda

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

D.Venkat Kishan Rao, v. Central Bank of India, Hanumakonda

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Syeda Fathima Begum Vs Mir Fazle Ali Khan

Brijigopal Asawa Vs Jaikishan Asawa

Boddu Yohan, Vs The Secretary, Csi Krishna Godavari Diocese

K.Mohan Vs State Bank of Hyderabad

Chikka Nagaratnam, Vs Mangalampalli Kamakumari

Ch.Sanjeeva Rao Vs Nimmagadda Nageswara Rao