Remanded

M/s. Sreenilaya Chit Fund Pvt. Ltd. v. Mr. S. N. Srinivas

Telangana HC24 Mar 2023CRP/3123/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Telangana set aside a cryptic order of the trial court that dismissed an execution application for attachment of salary under Order XXI Rule 48 of CPC. The revision petition was remanded to determine the employment status of judgment debtors to assess the garnishee's liability.

What did the court decide?

The order of the lower court dismissing the execution application was set aside and the matter remanded to ascertain the employment status of judgment debtors.

M/s. Sreenilaya Chit Fund Pvt. Ltd. Vs Mr. S. N… — Execution and Attachment | Telangana HC (2023)

¶1

[^2s86 I

¶2

! a l t ? I

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD

¶4

FRIDAY,THE TWENTY FOURTH DAY OF MARCH TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY THREE

¶5

PRESENT

¶6

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE P. NAVEEN RAO

¶7

CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO: 3123 OF 2022

¶8

Petition under Section 115 of Civil Procedure Code against the order dated 04.11 .2022 in EA No.78 of 2021 in EP No.462 of 2019, on the file of lX Junior Civil Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad District.

¶9

Between:

¶10

M/s. Sreenilaya Chit Fund Pvt. Ltd., Rep. by its Managing Director Mr. A.B. Shankara Rao, S/o. A.Bhadrachalam, aged about-7O years, 0/o. Lakdikapul, Hyderabad.

¶11

...PETITIONERYDECREE HOLDER

¶12

AND

¶13

Mr. S. N. Srinivas, S/o. S. N. Thanasulose, Aged about 35 years, RyO 10-4595, Ex-Serviceman Colony, Pochammabasthi, Humayun Nagar, Hyderabad.

¶14

Mr. A.V. Sreedhar Rao, S/o. (L) A. Venkata Ramaiah, Aged about 46 years, Occ. School Asst.(Maths), ZPH School, Akthotapally, Amangat Mandal, Ranga Reddy Dist.

¶15

Mr. R. Dharmendhar Rao, S/o. R. Raghavendar Rao, Aged about 41 years, Occ. School Asst.(Physics),. ZPH School, Akthotapally, Amangat Mandat, Ranga Reddy Dist.

¶16

Mr. E. Kondal Reddy, , S/o. E. Ranga Reddy, Aged about 43 years, Occ. Record Asst, ZPH School, Avurapally, Madugula Mandal, Ranga Reddy Dist.

¶17

Mrs. K. Mamatha, W/o K. Suresh, aged about 42 years, R/o.'10-4 -77117t1, Ftat No. 303, Satya Sri Arcade, Sri Ramnagar colony, Masab Tank, Hyderabad.

¶18

o- Mrs. S.N, Satyavathi, W/o (L) S.M. Thanasulose, aged about 55 years, Ryo-10-4-595, Pochammabasthi, Ex. Serviceman Colony, Humayun Nagar, Hyderabad-28.

¶19

...RESPONOENTS/JUDGMENT DEBTORS No.1 to 6

¶20

The Deputy Educational Officer, O/o. The Deputy Educational Office, Ranga Reddy District, Lakdikapul, Hyderabad.

¶21

...RESPONDENT No.7/GARNISHEE OF JDR No.2,3,4

¶22

Counsel for the Petitioner: SRI NARSI REDDY PESARA

¶23

Counsel for the Respondents: NONE APPEARED

¶24

The Court made the following: ORDER

¶25

PN&J CRP No.3t23 of 2022

¶26

¶27

HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE P.NAVEEN RAO CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO.s123 OF 2022

¶28

ORDER:

¶29

Seeking enforcement o[ the Award of Arbitrator dated 25.03.2019 in Arb/CF.No.2O of 2Ol7 on the file of Deputy Registrar of Chits/ Arbitrator at Erragadda, Hyderabad (South), for a sum of 1 2,42,6181 - u'ith costs holding respondents therein as^jointly and severally liable, the Decree-holder liled E.P.No.462 of 2Ol9 in thc Cor.rrt of IX Junior Civil Judge, City Civil Court at Hyderabad to realize awarded amount of ? 3,48,7 | 1/- lrom Judgment debtors 2, 3 and 4 by way of attachmcnt ol- salary under Ordcr XXI Rule 48 of Code of Civil Procedurc, 1908 (CPC). On 09.07.2O19 the Court below ordered attachment of salzrry o[^juclgmt:nt debtors 2,3 and 4.

¶30

It is thc case ol petitioner that even though attachment order was sen,ed on the Garnishee, i.e., the Deputy Educational Officer, Lakdikapul, Rangar Rerldy district, under whose control Judgment debtors 2, 3 and^,1 rt'ere working on 16.07.2019, the Garnishee has not withheld the amounts and remitted the amounts as required by Order XXI Rule a8(2) of CPC.

¶31

PNR,J CRP No.3l2J ol2022

¶32

¶33

Hence, he frled E.A.No.78 of 2O2L in E.P.No.462 of 2Ol9 to attach movable assets of the Garnishee/7fr^{respondent.The} trial Court dismissed the E.A. Hence, this Revision.

¶34

I have heard learned counsel for petitioner. Though notices served, no representation for Judgment debtors 2, 3 and 4 and for Garnishee.

¶35

Rule 48 of Order XXI envisages attachment of salary or allowance of Government employee or an employee of local authority where such salary is to be disbursed within the local limits to which CPC extends. In terms of Order XXI Rule 48, whenever attachment of salary or allowance order is passed, it is the duty of the Disbursing Offrcer to withhold the amount and remit to the Court. If he fails to comply with the order of the Exccuting Court, under Rule 48(3) the amount can be recovered from the Garnishee.

¶36

That being the statutory mandate, the Court below only said that the property of the Garnishee cannot be attached. It is a cryptic order. No reasons are assigned why it failed to exercise^jurisdiction under Order XXI Rule 48(3) of CPC.

¶37

PNR"J CRP No.3123 oI2022

¶38

¶39

However, the pleadings in the E.P., and E.A., are silent as to nature of employment of^judgment debtors 2, 3 and 4. It is not stated whether they are employees of the Government or a local body.

¶40

In the facts and circumstances, I set aside the order^ofthe Court below and remand the matter for^{considerationof} E.A.No.78 of 2O2l in 8.P.No.462 of^{2Ol9 afresh. The petitioner} shall hle an additional affidavit^giving full^{particularsof} employment of^judgment debtors 2, 3^{and 4.The trial Court} shall afford due opportunit), to all the^{parties and pass} appropriate orders. Civrl^{Revision Petitionis disposedof'} Pending miscellaneous applicalions if^{any shall standclosed'}

¶41

Sd/.A.V.S.PRASAD ASSISTANT REGISTRAR //TRUE COPY// /

¶42

SECTION OFFICER

¶43

To,

¶44

The lX Junior^{Civil Judge'City Civil Court, Hyderabad'}

¶45

One CC to Sri^{Narsi Reddy Pesara, Advocate [OPUC]} 3. Two CD^CoPies gbr \ *,

HIGH COURT

I l I i

DATED: 24103t2029

ORDER

-- _1__1.1':-- . 1
t
31 t'i[Y ?il?j

¶51

CRP.No.3123 ot 20ZZ

¶52

DISPOSING OF THE CIVIL REVISION PETITION

¶53

S
,.'=
<br>*

M/s. Sreenilaya Chit Fund Pvt. Ltd. v. Mr. S. N. Srinivas

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

M/s. Sreenilaya Chit Fund Pvt. Ltd. v. Mr. S. N. Srinivas

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

M. Usha alias K. Usha Vs M.V. Hanumantha Rao

Smt. Suchitra Dhagat Vs Mrs. G. Sumanlata

Major Pankaj Rai Vs Krisnavani Rai

Mahnoor Ali Abbas Vs Tabasum Begum

Mahnoor Ali Abbas, Vs Mrs. Kanees Fatima

Mahnoor Ali Abbas, Vs Mohd Basheer Ahmed