The High Court · 2025

...Respondents/Plaintiff DHR lA NO: 1 OF 2025 t Petition under Section 15'l CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to stay of all further proceedings in E.P.No.8 of 2022 ln O.S. No. 22 of 2021 on the tile of Principal Junior Civil Judge at Gadwal. Counsel for the Petitioner: SRI G.RAJESHWAR RAO Counsel for the Respondent: SRI AJGAL RAVI BABU The Court made the following: ORDER THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE NARSING RAO NANDIKONDA CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.656 of 2o25 ORDER: This Civil Revision Petition is liled by th e petitioner Defendant/JDR aggrieved bv the order of attachment vvarrant of retirement benefits, dated 02.01.2025 in Ep No.8 of 2022 in OS No.22 of 2O2l on the file of Prl.Junior Civil Judge, (iadwal.

2. Brief facts of the case are that respondent/ [rlaintiff/ DHR earlier filed OS No.22 of 2O2I on the file of the Addl.Junior Civil Judge, Gadu'al, seeking recovery for an amount of Rs. I 3,76,O00/ - lvith interest Q! 7 2olt per annum, r,he said suit was decreecl in favour of piaintiff on Ol.O4.202_1, tlrereafter, the plaintiff filed EP No.B of 2022 and the said Executing petition was decreed in favour of plaintiff, and the clefenclgnt did not choose to contest the suit as well as execution petitton, as such, the defendant was set ex-parte. The said ex parte decree was passed by the Principle Junior Civil Judge, Gadwal, in favour of plaintiff for a sum of Rs.13,76,000/ q/irh inrerest (e 12% p.a from the date of suit till the date of decree and future interest (@ 6ok p.a. on the principle sum of Rs.4,00,000/_ (promissory note dated 10.01.2018) lrom the date of decree till the date of Vr 2 realisation. Aggrieved by the NNR,"/ CRp No.656 of2025 said order of Execution petition order, dated 02.Ol.2O2S, the present revision petition is filed.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the ex-parte decree was passed showing the petitioner,s office address and the name of the petitioner as Md.Amanulla Khan S/o.Md.lkramulla, infact the petitioner narne is only Md.Amanullah and the petitioner obtained arly loan from the respondent nor the petitioner never met the respondent. It is further contended that the respondent in collusion with Mr. D. Shyamsunder Rao have obtained the ex parte decree. It is further contended that after retirement, the petitioner is residing at Hanmakonda District along with his famiiy members, however, the petitioner came to kntp of the said proceedings after dispatch of the order passed by the trial Court in EP No.B of 2022, dated 02.01.2025 and, further contended that the said decree was illegal one and was obtained by the respondent by misguiding the trial Court and prays this Court to set aside the order passed by the trial Court in Ep No.B of

2022. vNR.J CRP No.656 of 2025 Learned counsel for the respondent submits that the triai

4. J Court has rightly decreed the suit and ailow'ed the execution petition by considering the oral and documentary evidence and needs no interference by this Court and prayed this Court to dismiss the present revision petition.

5. Heard Sri G.RaJeshuar Rao, learned counsel for the petitioner/ clefe ndant/JDR and Sri Ajgal Raui Bcrbu, learned counsel for the respondent/ plaintiff/ DHR

6. Vide the impugned order, dated O2.O1.2O25, the trial Court issued the order of attachment warrant, attaching the retirement benefits of the petitioner/ defendant. On perusal of the rmpugned order of the 02.01.2025, wherein the trial Court after considering the fact that inspite service of notice on the defendant, he did not choose to either appear or file counter- affidavit. Hence, after considering the arguments of the execution petitioner, the defendant was set ex parte and the trial Court has ordered to attach the retirement benefits of the defendant/JDR to the extent, which are liable tc, be attached under Section 60 of C.P.C. 7 . The point that arose before this Court for consideration is ArvR.-/ CRP No.656 of2025 4 that: " 1 . Whether the petitioner has made out anA grounds to interfere uith the impugned order possed bg trial Court.?

2. If so, to uhat relieJ?

8. The main grievance ol the petitioner under this revision petition is that the petitioner never obtained any loan from the respondent and that the suit u,as filed basing on the forged promissory note, dated 10.01.20 18, which has been created by the respondent/ plaintiff in collusion with one Sri D.shyamsunder Rao, but the said aspect cannot be gone into this stage after the execution court passed order in Execution Petition.

9. Admittediy, the petitioner neither participated in the suit nor in the execution proceedings, though the record speaks that the petitioner/ defendant was served with notices, inspite of the service of the notices to the petitioner, he did not choose to appear nor contest the suit or EP. The petitioner/ defendant could have taken steps to recall or seek setting aside the decree passed in origiraLsuit i.e., OS No.8 of 2022 by taking the remedy available under the CPC. The conduct of the petitioner ,r.r*,, ' ir.outd clearty shows that the petitioner having ,r"*.Ziit {"iri along during the suit and the execution petition, now after the order of attachment of the retirement benefits is made, the petitioner has approached this Court by way of present revision petition. lnfaci, on perusal of the execution petitiorL order. dated O2.O\.2O25 and the warrant, which was issued by the trial Court specilically states that only the portion ol. the amount u'hich are liable for attachment is ordered to be attached in terms of Section 60 of the C.p.C.

10. As such, the Court is of the opinion that the Execution Court did not <:ommit any error in passing the order in Ep No.B of 2022, dated 02.01.2025. Hence for the said reasons, the instant Civii Revision petition deserves to be and is accordingly dismissed. 1 i . Miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending petition shall stand closed. ln this revision SD/-A. JAYASREE ASSISTANT REGISTRAR

6. SECTION OFFICER i l I I I l l //TRUE COPY// To, 1 The Principal Junior Civil Judge at Gadwal. i, ff : E g L:j[ F.[?'a:ysi n{nrii::iir353i] (t NVB/PSL :::a:._.-=*':*l *=::-''-'--- -l-**:*l HIGH COURT I DATED:04109t2025 .,., j:! ) .) t) I \ I i ttl 2$fr ::.: r .....- \:i. . ORDER CRP.No.656 of 2025 DISMISSING THE CIVIL REVISION (s- ,