This revision is directed against the order dated 26.7.2013 of the Subordinate Judge, Neyveli in E.P.No.43 of 2013 in A.R.C.No.480 of 2011, ordering attachment of salary of the petitioners by 04.9.2013.
2. I heard Mr.P.Mani, learned counsel for the petitioners and Mr.V.Manisekaran, learned counsel for the 1st respondent and also perused the materials available on record. No representation on behalf of the 2nd respondent.
3. The 1st respondent initiated A.R.C.No.480 of 2011 before the Deputy Registrar, Chits, Cuddalore against the petitioners and the 2nd respondent. By an order dated 31.5.2011, an Award was passed directing the petitioners and the 2nd respondent to pay a sum of Rs.7,09,200/- together with interest at the rate of 24% per annum from the date of suit to the date of realisation.
4. Pursuant to the Award passed in A.R.C.No.480 of 2011, the 1st respondent has filed E.P.No.43 of 2013 to attach the salary of the petitioners under Order 21, Rule 48 of CPC to realise the decree amount.
5. Resisting E.P.No.43 of 2013, the petitioners have filed counter stating that they have paid the decree amount in 37 instalments and they were not receiving the salary as mentioned in Column 10 of the E.P. It was stated that the amounts paid by the petitioners were adjusted towards the interest only and hence, prayed for dismissal of the E.P.
6. Upon consideration of the rival submissions, the Execution Court, ordered attachment of the salary of the petitioners.
7. Assailing the order of attachment, the petitioners have filed the present revision stating that the petitioners were only sureties and without proceeding against the principal debtor i.e., the 2nd respondent, who had valuable properties, the 1st respondent cannot initiate execution proceedings against them. Therefore, order passed by the Execution Court was liable to be set aside in as much as it has ordered attachment of salary of the petitioners without considering the valid objections raised by them. According to the petitioners, the Execution Court has failed to consider the fact that the petitioners have preferred an appeal before the Government against the Award.
8. Reiterating the order of the Execution Court, the learned counsel for the 1st respondent submitted that since the petitioners have failed to pay the decree amount, the Execution Court has rightly ordered attachment of salary of the petitioners. He would submit that only after analysing the objection raised by the petitioners in the E.P., the Execution Court ordered attachment of salary and there is no need to interfere with the same.
9. The point that arises for consideration is whether the Execution Court was right in ordering attachment of salary.
10. While ordering attachment of salary of the petitioners, the Execution Court observed as under:
The respondents filed memo on 15.7.2013 and 17.07.2013 stating that appeal has been preferred along with stay application by the respondents. But in both memos no official number either the said appeal or stay application is furnished and therefore, those memos were rejected by this court. Being the judgment debtor the respondents are under bounden duty to pay the amount towards decree. Being the decree holder the petitioner is entitled to realize the fruits of the decree. No valid objection raised in the counter. The raised averments are also not supported by any material evidence. Therefore, the petition is liable to be allowed in the interest of justice.
In the result, attachment ordered, attachment against 2 to 9 respondents by 04.09.2013. Batta in 3 days.
11. No material has been produced by the petitioners to show that the Award passed in A.R.C.No.480 of 2011 has been set aside and/or stayed by the appellate Court. In the absence of any appeal and/or stay of the operation of the Award passed in A.R.C.No.480 of 2011, the Execution Court was right in ordering attachment of salary of the petitioners.
12. Though the petitioners have contended that the 1st respondent ought to have initiated execution proceedings first on the 2nd respondent/judgment debtor, nothing has been produced to substantiate the said plea. Since the Deputy Registrar, Chits has passed an Award directing the petitioners and the 2nd respondent to pay the decree amount, the 1st respondent/decree holder is entitled to maintain the execution proceedings either on the petitioners or on the 2nd respondent at their choice to realise the fruits of the Award/decree.
13. Since no valid objection has been raised in the counter and also the averments set out in the counter was not supported by any material evidence, the Execution Court has rightly ordered attachment against the petitioners. This Court finds no infirmity in the order of the Execution Court and hence, the Civil Revision Petition is liable to be dismissed.
14. In the result, the Civil Revision Petition is dismissed. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed.
27.02.2017 Note:Issue order copy on 11.10.2018 vs Index : Yes To The Subordinate Judge, Neyveli.
M.V.MURALIDARAN, J.
vs C.R.P.(NPD) No.3035 of 2013 and M.P.No.1 of 2013 27.02.2017