Telangana High Court
CRP/2011/2021 of Kankam Shankar Babu Vs M/ s. Shriram City Union Finance Limited on 31 December 2021
COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD FRIDAY, THE THIRTY FIRST DAY OF DECEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY ONE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE DR. JUSTICE SHAMEEM AKTHER CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO i 20'11 0F 2021 Petition under Article 227 ol the constitution of lndia, against the salary attachment
IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANAAT HYDERABAD
FRIDAY, THE THIRTY FIRST DAY OF DECEMBERTWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY ONE
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE DR. JUSTICE SHAMEEM AKTHER
CIVIL REVISION PETITION NOi 20'11 0F 2021
Petition under Article 227 ol the constitution of lndia, against the salaryattachment notice order dated.15.11.2021 passed in E.p. No. 132 of 2019 in A.R.B.case No. 817 of 2015 on the file of the court of the Family-cum- Additional DistrictJudge, at Karimanagar.
Between:
H. No.fqn[ql [Shankar ][Babu, ][S/o. ][Hanum-anthu, ][Aged years Occ. ][l.p. ][(Hindi), ]6-2-419, Hussainpura, Karimnagar, Karimnagdr Di6trict. ...petitioneriJDr No.3
AND
1 N// s Shriram city Union Finance Limited, Karimnaoar-l Branch, reoresented bvcity Union Finance Limited, Karimnaoar-l Branch, reoresented bvrts Authorized Signatory and Power of Attorney Holder, A. Mallikarjln,S/o.Srinivas, Aged 38 years. R/o. Karimnaqar.S/o.Srinivas, Aged 38 years. R/o. Karimnaqar.
2. The lvlandal Educationat Officer, O/o. t\rlandal Educat'". On';;,t"rifn??38:50'*Mandal Peddapally District.Mandal Peddapally District.
3. Katt,epaily Bata Raju S/o. Anjaiah, Aged tvajor, o"". ;,Lii3rtlfll:''i"-T-d3:#Karkhana Gadda, Karimangar, Karimangar District.Karkhana Gadda, Karimangar, Karimangar District.+. \gda.r!Samp-ath Kumar, S/o. Sa.muel, Aged l\Iajor, Occ. Hostel Wetfare Officer,R/o. H No. 10-1-359, Santhosh Nagar, K2rimnagai Karimanqar Oiitrict. [- ][-- ]['](Respondents 3 and 4 are necessa-ry parties to [his Civit Revision petliionlR/o. H No. 10-1-359, Santhosh Nagar, K2rimnagai Karimanqar Oiitrict. [- ][-- ]['](Respondents 3 and 4 are necessa-ry parties to [his Civit Revision petliionl
... Respondents/J Dr Nos.1 and 2
lA NO: 1 OF 2021
Petition under section 151 cpc praying that in the circumstances stated inthe affidavit filed therewith, the High court may be pleased to stay of execution ofthe order to attach salary attachment order dated i5l1 1/2021 passed in Ep No. 132of 2019 in A.R.B. case No. 817 of 201s on the file of the court of the Family- cum-Additional District Judge, at Karimangar, pending disposal of main civil RevisionPetition.
Counsel for the Petitioner: SRI p. VAMSHEEDHAR REDDY
Counsel forthe Respondent No.1: SRI N. SRIKANTH GOUD
Counsel for the Respondent Nos.2 to 4:
The Court made the following: ORDER
THE HOlI'BLE Dr. JUSTICE SHAMEEM [AKTHER]
CIVIL RTIVISION [PETITION ][No.2011 ][OF ][2021]
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:
This revisio I [petition, ]under [Article 227 of ][the ][Constitution of]India, is filed by 'he [petitioner/judgment ][debtor ][No.3 ][aggrieved ][by]the order, dated 15.11.2021, [passed ][in ][E,P.No.132 ][of ][2019 ][in]Arb.Case No.81. of 2015 by [the ][Additional ][District ][ludge,]Karimnagar, wh:reby the [respondent ][No.2 ][was ][directed ][to]withhold a sum o Rs,4,44,0L4/- [from the ][salary of ][the ][petitioner']
2. Heard the l:arned counsel [for the petitioner, ][learned ][counsel]for respondent Nr,'1 and [perused ][the ][record.]
3. Learned co tnsel for the [petitioner would ][submit ][that ]60 C.P.C. has no been [followed by ][the ][Court below, ][while ][passing]the impugned orcer, dated t5.Lt.202L.
4. Learned c<unsel for respondent No'1 [would submit ][that]having regard o Section 60 C.P'C., the [amount ][due ][i.e.,]Rs.4,44,OL4l- w,ts ordered to be [recovered ][by ][way ][of ][monthly]instalments and here is no [illegality ][in ][the ][impugned ][order, ][so ][as]to interfere with he same.
5. Under thes: circumstances, it [is ][appropriate ][to ][refer ][to ][the]operative portior of the impugned order, [dated ][15.11.2021, ][wltich]reads as follows:
"You lre here by required to withhold the said [su'n]of Rs.4,44 014/- [(Four ]Lakhs [Forty ][Four Thousand ][And]Fourteen lupees only) from the salary of [the ][said]
Kankam Shankar Babu (Judgment Debtor) as per Sec.60of C,P.C. after deducting standard deduction plus onethousand and 2/3'd of Remaining gross salary and shallremit the balance 713'd of salary every month from thedate of receipt of this warrant. The amount may be sentdirectly by D,D. to this court in the name of Family CourtCum Addl District Judge, Karimnagar."
6, As seen from the operative portion of the impugned order,dated 15.11.2021, extracted above, Section 60 C.P.C. has beenfollowed scrupulously. After deducting certain amounts, finallyL/3'd of the salary of the [petitioner ]is ordered to be attached everymonth. Under these circumstances, there is no illegality in theimpugned order, so as to interfere with the same. The revisionpetition is devoid of merit and is liable to be dismissed.
7. Accordingly, the Civil Revision Petition is dismissed Miscellaneous Petitions, if any, [pending ]in this Civil Revision Petition shall stand closed. There shall be no order as to costs.
SD/.K.SAILESHIASSISTANT REGISTRAR//TRUE COPY//SECTION OFFICERTo,1. The Family-cum- Additional District Judge, at Karimfnagar.2. One CC to SRl. P. VAMSHEEDHAR REDDY, Advdcate [OPUC]3. One CC to SRl. N. SRIKANTH GOUD, Advocate [OPUC]4. Two CD Copies5. One Spare CopyMMK ,I ,TR(
a
DATED:3111212021
ORDERCRP.No.201't of 2021
1t'.L.l-;iii'tt.t(-'i)18 FrE [2022]+.. [.41]
DISMISSING TH = [CIVIL REVISION ][PETITION]