Telangana High Court
CRP/6389/2016 of P.Satyavathi, Vs Boddu Krishnaveni, on 30 December 2016
C.V. NAGARJUNA REDDY CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.6389 of 2016 Dated: 30.12.2016 Between: P.Satyavathi. .. Petitioner and Boddu Krishnaveni and others. .. Respondents Counsel for the Petitioner : Mr. Jithender Rao Veeramalla Counsel for Respondents : The Court made the following: CVNR,J
CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.6389 of 2016
Dated: 30.12.2016
Between: P.Satyavathi.
and Boddu Krishnaveni and others.
.. Petitioner
.. Respondents
Counsel for the Petitioner : Mr. Jithender Rao Veeramalla Counsel for Respondents :
The Court made the following:
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:
The decree holder in O.S.No.27 of 2006 on the file of the III Additional Junior Civil Judge at Visakhapatnam filed E.P.No.128 of 2009 for execution of the decree. She has filed I.A.No.12 of 2006 for attachment of death-cum-terminal benefits of the original borrower late Boddu Sundara Rao. An attachment warrant was issued to respondent No.4/ garnishee of late B.Sundara Rao and the same was served on 23.01.2006. After return of warrant, the lower Court, by its order dated 21.12.2006, made the attachment absolute. The petitioner has filed E.A.No.28 of 2012 to send for the amount belonging to late B.Sundara Rao lying in the hands of garnishee and attached in I.A.No.12 of 2006. The garnishee has replied to the effect that it has disbursed all the amounts to the legal heirs of the deceased Sundara Rao.
The petitioner has filed E.A.No.376 of 2012 to issue show cause notice to respondent No.4/ garnishee of late B.Sundara Rao as to why it should not be directed to send the amounts attached in I.A.No.12 of 2006. As this application has been dismissed, the petitioner/ decree holder filed this revision petition.
From the narration of the facts in the order under challenge, it is evident that in response to notice dated 06.02.2006 of the counsel for the petitioner, respondent No.4 has sent intimation dated 13.02.2016, marked as Ex.P6, wherein it is clearly mentioned that the death benefits were only Rs.3,000/ - towards the full settlement amount and the same was kept in deposit in pursuance of court order dated 06.01.2006 in I.A.No.12 of 2006 in O.S.No.27 of 2006. It is further evident that though as per the attachment order, the amount liable to be withheld by the garnishee was Rs.59,526/ -, a sum of Rs.3,000/ - only was attached and though the petitioner’s counsel was aware of this fact, he has not raised any objection in that regard and attachment order was made absolute on 21.12.2006
itself. Having not raised any objection regarding the non-compliance of the attachment order from 21.12.2006 till the year 2012, the petitioner has belatedly filed E.A.No.376 of 2012.
In the light of the above facts, the lower Court has rightly declined to accept the plea of the petitioner and dismissed the E.A and I do not find any jurisdictional error in the order of the lower Court warranting interference of this Court in exercise of its revisional jurisdiction.
The Civil Revision Petition is accordingly dismissed.
30-12-2016 v v
_____________________________ JUSTICE C.V. NAGARJUNA REDDY