Telangana High Court
CRP/5722/2015 of Jagannadham Jalaiah Vs Margadarsi Chit Fund Pvt. Ltd on 31 December 2015
SRI JUSTICE RAMESH RANGANATHAN Civil Revision Petition No.5722 of 2015 ORDER: Heard Sri R.Siva Sai Swaroop, Learned Counsel for the petitioner, and Sri P.Durga Prasad, Learned Counsel for the 1st respondent-decree holder. This revision is preferred against the order passed by the
THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE RAMESH RANGANATHANCivil Revision Petition No.5722 of 2015
Citations and Judicial Treatment
Cited by
0
Decisions in the index citing it
Cites
0
Decisions referred to
In this index
0
Of the decisions it cites
Overruled / Questioned
0
No negative treatment found
Loading the citing and cited decisions…
This judgment in the centre: on the left the decisions it cites, on the right the decisions citing it. Colour is the treatment; choose a decision to open it.
ORDER:
Heard Sri R.Siva Sai Swaroop, Learned Counsel for thepetitioner, and Sri P.Durga Prasad, Learned Counsel for the 1[st]respondent-decree holder. This revision is preferred against the orderpassed by the Learned Additional Senior Civil Judge at Gajuwaka, inE.P.No.49 of 2014 in Dispute No.9 of 2012, dated 24.03.2015.
The 1[st] respondent herein filed an Execution Petition againstjudgment-debtors 1 to 5 for issuance of a warrant of attachment underOrder 21 Rule 48 CPC. In the order under revision, the Court belownoted that it is only judgment-debtor No.5 (the revision petitionerherein) who was contesting the petition; he had contended that he didnot have sufficient means to pay the decretal amount; he filed hissalary slips, a perusal of which showed that his gross salary wasRs.50,221.86 ps. and net pay after deductions was Rs.16,091/-; thejudgment-debtor No.5 had stated that he was only receiving net salaryof Rs.10,700/- per month which was not correct; even otherwise, onperusal of the deductions shown in the pay slip, the deductions werenot Government deductions, or for any other permissible loans; thejudgment-debtor No.5 had contended that he had obtained a personalloan, and had been paying Rs.5,300/- per month towards personalloan; this was his personal affair; and it could not be linked with thedecretal amount. The Court below was satisfied that judgment-debtorNo.5 was having sufficient means to pay the decretal amount; he wasevading payment of the same; and, hence, the decree-holder wasentitled to seek attachment of salary under Order 21 Rule 48 CPC.The petition was allowed and a warrant, under Order 21 Rule 48, wasissued against judgment-debtors 1 to 5.
The only contention urged before this Court by Sri R. Siva SaiSwaroop, Learned Counsel for the petitioner-judgment-debtor No.5, is that, as a result of the order under revision, the petitioner’s entiresalary is now being adjusted towards payment of the decretal amount,without even subjecting such attachment to the provisions of Section60 CPC. On the other hand Sri P.Durga Prasad, Learned Counsel for1[st] respondent-decree-holder, would contend that no material hasbeen placed by the revision petitioner to show that his entire salary isbeing deducted.
While the submission urged, on behalf of the 1[st] respondent-decree-holder, by Sri P.Durga Prasad cannot be said to be withoutmerit, the fact remains that any amount deducted from the revisionpetitioner’s salary can only be in accordance with Section 60 CPC.
The order, under revision, is modified. The warrant issued underOrder 21 Rule 48 CPC against the garnishee of judgment-debtors 1 to5, and the deductions from the salary of the revision petitioner-judgment-debtor No.5, shall be made in accordance with theconditions stipulated in Section 60 CPC.
The Civil Revision Petition is, accordingly, disposed of. TheMiscellaneous Petitions, if any pending, shall also stand disposed of. No costs.
______________________________
(RAMESH RANGANATHAN, J)Date:31.12.2015. cs