THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE M.S.RAMACHANDRA RAO CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.6178 of 2012 Date: 15-07-2014 Between :- C.Chowdeswara Rao.
… Petitioner.
And K.Sreenivasa Rao.
… Respondent.
Counsel for the petitioner : Sri K.Maheswara Rao Counsel for respondent : Sri N.Chandra Sekhar Reddy This Court made the following :-
THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE M.S.RAMACHANDRA RAO CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.6178 of 2012 ORDER:
This Revision is filed challenging the order dt.31-10-
2012 in E.P.No.119 of 2011 in O.S.No.33 of 2010 of the Junior Civil Judge, Guntakal.
2. The petitioner is Judgment Debtor in the above suit. The suit was filed by respondent for recovery of money and was decreed on 05-05-2011. E.P.No.119 of 2011 was filed for recovery of a sum of Rs.1,14,701/- from the petitioner invoking Order XXI Rule 52 CPC seeking attachment of the said amount in the S.B.Account of petitioner in the State Bank of India, Main Branch, Railway Station Road, Guntakal. It is not disputed that the petitioner is an employee in the South Central Railways.
3. Counter affidavit is filed by petitioner in the said application contending that such amount was not available in the said account, but the Bank authorities are withholding the said account and he is unable to draw even his minimum salary from his S.B.Account.
4. By order dt.31-10-2012, the said E.P. was allowed directing attachment of the S.B.Account of petitioner in State Bank of India in Guntakal for the amount of Rs.1,14,701/-.
5. Challenging the same, this Revision is filed.
6. On 10-12-2012, this Court ordered notice before admission and granted interim stay of the said attachment. The said order was modified on 07-06-2013 by extending the stay order on condition of petitioner depositing Rs.50,000/- to the credit of the E.P. within 3 weeks from that day. It is stated that the said order was complied with and the respondent has withdrawn the said amount.
7. The learned counsel for petitioner states that when there is no amount in the S.B.Account, the Court below could not have applied Order XXI Rule 52 CPC and attached it.
8. The learned counsel for respondent, however, refuted to receive the same saying that even if the amount is deposited in that S.B. account subsequent to attachment, the Decree Holder can take it.
9. The trial Court noted that in the counter affidavit filed by Judgment Debtor, he stated that the amount was deposited in the S.B. Account after filing of the E.P. and that it is not within in his knowledge, and since the amount is available, whether such amount was deposited either before or after filing of E.P., the same is immaterial. It noticed that the J.Dr. has not challenged the decree and therefore the D.Hr. was at liberty to execute it by any means and the D.Hr. cannot be deprived of the fruits of the decree on the ground of technicalities.
10. I am in complete agreement with the reasoning of the trial Court. The trial Court has rightly rejected the objection of the J.Dr. to the attachment of his S.B. Account where his salary is being credited. It is clear that the J.Dr, being an employee in South Central Railways, has means to satisfy the decree but has evaded to do so for a period of 3 years after the decree was passed on 05-05-2011.
11. I therefore do not find any error in the exercise of jurisdiction by the Court below. Therefore, the Civil Revision Petition is dismissed. No costs.
12. The petitioner is granted one month time from today to pay the balance E.P. amount to the respondent and on such payment only the attachment of his S.B. Account shall be raised. Otherwise, it shall continue till the entire E.P. amount is recovered from petitioner.
13. Miscellaneous applications pending if any, in this Civil Revision Petition shall stand closed.
JUSTICE M.S.RAMACHANDRA RAO Date: 15-07-2014 vsv