The High Court · 2025

Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to dispense with the certified copy of the docket order dated 20-03-2024 in EP 0-127 of 2023 on the file of the xr Junior civir Judge, city civil court, at ecunderabad about the filing of the Civil Revision petition S lA NO: 2 OF 2024 Petition under section 151 cpc praying that in the crircumstances stated in the affidavit filed rn support of the petition, the High court may be pleased to stay of all the further proceedings in Ep No.127 of 2023, on the file oi xl Junior civil Judge, city civil court, at secunderabad till the disposal of the above civil Revision Petition. Counsel for the Petitioner: Sri Narsi Reddy pesara Counsel for the Respondent No.1: Sri N. Shankaraiah The Court made the following: ORDER HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE LAXMI NARAYANA ALISHETTY CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.1448 of 2024 ORDER: This Civil Revision Petition is filed aggrieved by order dated

23.03.2024, passed by the XI Junior Civil Judge, City Civil Court, Secunderabad, in E.P.No. 127 of 2023 in Dispute No.l56 of 2022, whereunder warrant was issued under Order XXI Rule 48 CPC attaching the salary ol the petitioner.

2. When the matter is taken up for hearing, Sri Narsi Reddy Pesara, learned counsel for the petitioner, submitted that the issue involved in this Revision Petition is squarely covered by judgment of this Court in Prattipati Srinivasa Rao Vs. Shriram City Union Finance Lttl, Kotlod antl otherst and prayed this Court to dispose of the present Civil ltevision Petition in terms of the said judgment.

3. Sri N.Shankaraiah, learned counsel for respondent No.l, has not opposed the said submission.

4. In view of the above submissions, this Civil Revision Petition is allowed, in terms ol the judgment passed by this Court in Prattipali Srinivasa Rao's case (cited supra), and the impugned ' zoz3(4) ALD 535(TS) 2 LNA. J IRP l'o 1118 of 2024 order is set aside and the matrer is remanded to the trial Court with a direction to pass orders alresh in accordance with law duly considering the aspects as lnentiolled in prafiipttti -\rinivasa Rao,s case (cited supra). 5. Pending Miscellaneous Applications, if any, shall stand dismissed. No costs. To, //TRUE COPY// . Sd/. N. SRIHARI REGTSTRAR AtNl \; sEcrroN oFFrcER

1. The Xl Junior Civil Judge, City Civit Court, at Secunderabad 2. One CC to Sri Narsi Reddy pesara, Advocate tOpUCl 3. One CC to Sri N. Shankaraiah, Advocate [OPUC] 4. Two CD Copies kam/gh \* (. \ HIGH COURT DATED:1 210212025 ORDER CRP.No.1448 ot 2024 k t -)) ,-) iHr ' 3r' \. UN T6 ;) -!,,,, 'y' , -a 'x.' 1 t t', ALLOWING THE CIVIL REVISION PETITION (9 .rtt4 k* 2 THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE K.LAKSHMAII CI L REVISION PETITION NOs.133 AND 151 OF 2023 COMMON ORDER: Heard Sri Nageshwar Rao Pujari, learned counsel for the petitioners in both the revisions and Sri N.Srikanth Goud, learned counsel appearing for respondent No.l. Perused the record

2. Questioning the order dared 24.08.2022 in E.P.No.29 of 2021 in ARB No. 180 of 2020 passcd by lcamed V Additional District Judge, at Miryalaguda, the petitioners hcrein in both the rcvisions/J. Drs. 2 and 3 therein have filed the aforesaid revisions. Facts of the case:-

3. On the application filed by l" respondent, an award dated

06.01.2021 passed in arbitration application vide ARB No.180/2020 under Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (for short, the Act'), against the petitioners and Smt.Prathipati Shirisha (J.Dr.No.1). They have not filed any application under Section 34 of the Act challenging the said award and it attained finatity. Therefore, 1" respondent/Decreeholder had filed an Execution Petition vide E.P.No.29 of 2021 under Section 36 of the Act seeking execution of the said award. Vide order dated 24.08.2022,leamed V Additional District 3 Judge at Miryalaguda has passed an order of attachrnent of salary of both the petitioners to an extent of Rs.4,10,258/- due to the Decreeholder under the Degree. The learned Judge also required the Drawing Officer i.e. Head Master in ZPHS School at t.ingagiri Vittage, Huzumagar Mandal, Suryapet District, to withhold the said sum from the salary of the petitioners in 24 monthly instalmcnts and to remit the same to the said Court. Challenging the said order, thc petitioners have filed the present revisions.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioners in both thc revisions would submit that the petitioners have not filed any application under Section 34 of the Act and however, the 1" respondent/Decreeholdet cannot seek execution of the aforesaid award dated 06.01..102 I to recover decree amount of Rs.4,10,258/- each from both thr pctitioners. It amounts to double the decree amount. The said fact u'as uot considered by the Court below while passing impugned order dated 24.08.2022. Even 1" respondent did not mention the said aspt:ct while filing Execution Petition under Section 36 of the Act. With thc said submissions, he sought to set aside both the orders.

5. Whereas, learned counsel appearing for l" respondent would submit that 1" respondent had hled E.P.No.29 of 2021 under Section 4 36 of the Act in terms of Order XXI Rule 48 of CPC, wherein there is no provision to seek execution of thc award by mentioning the amount proportionately. Therefore, lst respondent had filed Ep in terms of Order XXI rute 48 of CPC. Considering the said facr, the Court below had ordered attachment of salary. However, he fairly submits that necessary orders may be passed considering the provisions of the law to enable l't respondent to recover the award amount from both the petitioners.

6. There is no dispute thar on the application filed by l" respondent vide ARB No.180/2020, order dared 06.01.2021was passed by the Arbitrator awarding an amount of Rs.4,10,258/- along with the interest at the rate of 18% from 12.02.2020 to 16.09.2021 on the said amount from the petitioners and J.Dr. I .

7. No application under Section 34 o[ the Act was filed by the petitioners/J.Drs, challenging the said award and therefore, the said award attained finality. They have also not paid the aforesaid amount. Therefore, l't respondent had filed Execution Petition vide E.P.No.29 of 2021 under Section 36 read with Order XXI Rule l1(2) of CPC before the V additional District Judge, Miryalaguda, for an amount of Rs.4,10,258/- seeking execution of the aforesaid award. Thus, vide 5 impugned order, leamed Judge, directed the Drau'ing Officer to withhold an amount of Rs.4,10,258/- each from both the petitioners/ J-Drs.2 and 3. If the said amount is recovered. it would bc Rs.8,20,-s i 6/- which is impermissible. 1" respondent is entitled for only Rs.4,10,258/- i.e. award amount from the petitioners herein/J.Drs' together.

8. It is relevant to note that section 36 of the Act deals with Enforcement of Award and the same is relevant for the purposc of considering the lis in the present revisions and it is extracted below:- the time for making an application to sct Section 36:-Enforcement. aside the arbitral Award under section 34 has expired, or such application having been made, it has been refused, the award shall be ent:rced undcr the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (5 of 1908) in the same manner as iI it rvere a decree of the Court. -Where (2) Where an application to set aside the arbital award has been filed in the Court under section 34, the filing of such an application shall not by itsclf render that award unenforceable, unless the Court grants an order of stay oF the operation of the said arbitral award in accordance with the provisions of sub-seclion (3), on a separate application made for that purpos r. (3) Upon filing of an application under su!-section (2) for stay ol the operation ol the arbitral award, the Court may, subject to such conditions as it may decm fit, grant stay of the operation of such award for reasons to be recorded in writing: Provided that the Court shall, white considering the application for grant of stay in the case of an arbitral award for payment of money, have due regard to the provislons for grant of stay of a money decrec undcr the provisions of the Codc of Civil Proccdure, 1908 (5 of 1908). Order XXI Rule 11 (2) of CPC:- Written application- Save as otherwise provided by sub mle( l), e very applicatron for thc execution of a decree shall be in writing, signed and 6 verified by the applicant or by some other person proved to the satisfaction of the Court to be acquainted with the facts of the casc, and shall contain in a tabular form the following particulars, namely- (a) the number of the suit; (b) the names of the parties; (c) the date of the decree; (d) whether any appeal has been preferred from the decree; (e) whether any, and (ifany) what, payment or other adjustment ofthe matter in controversy has been made between the parties subsequently to the decree; (f) whether any, and (ifany) what, previous applications have been made for the execution of the decree, the dates of such applications and their results; (g) the amount with interest (if any) due upon thc decree, or orher relief granted thereby, together with particulars of any cross-decree, whether passed before or after the date of the decree sought to be executed; (h) the amount ofthe costs (ifany) awarded; (i) the name of the person against whom execution of thc decree is sought; () the mode in which the assistance of the Court is reqLrired whether- (i) (ii) by the delivery ofany propcrty specrfically decreed; by the attachment, or by the attachment and sale, or by the sale without attachment, ofany propertyi (iii) by the arrest and detention in prison ofany person; (iv) by the appointment ofa receivec (v) otherwise, as the nature of the reliefgranted may require. Order XXI Rule 48 of CPC Attachment of salary or allowances of servant of the Government or railway company or local authority.- (l) Where the property to be attached is the salary or allowances of a servant of the Govemment or of a servant ofa railway company or local authority or of a servant of a corporation engaged in any trade or industry which is established by a Central, Provincial or State Act, or a Governmenr company 7 as defined in section 617 of thc Companies Act, 1956 (l of 1956)] the Court, whethcr thc judgment-debtor or the disbusing officer is or is not within thc local limits of the Court's junsdrction, may order that tt,e amount shall, subject to the provisions of section 60, be withheld front such salary or allowances either in one payment or by monthly instalments rs the Court may dircct, and upon notice of the order to such officer as the appropriatc Govemmcnt may by notification in the Official Gazette appoint in this bchalf,- (a) whcre such salary or allowanccs are to be disbursed withir the local limits to which this Code for the time being extends, the officer or other person whose duty it is to disburse the same shall withhold and remit to the Court the amount due under thc order, or the monthly instalments. as the case may be; (b) where such salary or allowances are to be disbursed lrcyond the said limits, the olficer or other person within those limits whose duty it is to instruct the disbursing authority regarding the amount o[ the salary or allowances to be disbursed shall remit to the Court the amou'rt due under the order, or the monthly instalments, as the case may be, and shall direct tlre disbursing authority to reduce the aggregate of the amounts from time to time, to be disbursed by the aggregate of the amounts from tirne to time remitted to tlre Court. (2) Where the attachable proportion of such salary or allowrrnces is already being rvithheld and rcmitted to a Court in pursuance of a previous and unsatisfied ordcr of attachment, the officer appointed by the appropriate Govemment in this behalf shatl forthwith return the subsequent order to the Court issuing it with a full statement of all the particulars of the existing attachment. (3) Every order made under this rule, unless it is returned in zccordance with the provisions of sub-rule (2) shatl, without further notice oi other process, bind the appropriate Government or the railway company or local authorily or corporation of Govemrnent company, as the case may be, while the judgment-debtor is within the local limits to which this Co,lc for the time being extends and while he is beyond those limits, if he is in receipt of any salary or allowances payablc out of the Consolidatcd Fund of India or thc Consolidated Fund of the State or the funds of a railway corpany or local authority or corporation or Govemment company in India; and thc appropriate Government or the railway company or local authority or corporation or Govemmcnt company, as the case may be, shirll be liable for any sum paid in contravention of this rule. IExplanation.-ln this rule, "appropriate Government" mcans,- 8 (i) As respects any person in the service of the Central Govemment, or any servant of a railway administration or of a cantonmcnt authonty or of the port authority of a major port, or any servant of a corporation engaged rn any trade or industry which is established by a Central Act, or any servaur of a Govemment company in which any part of the share capital is held by the Ccntral Govemment or by more than one State Govemments or partly by thc Ccntral Govemment and partly by one or more State Govemments, the Central Governmcnt; (ri) As respects any other servant of the Govcrnmcnt, or a servant of any other local or other authority, or any servant of a corporation engaged in any trade or industry which is established by a Provincial or State act, or a servanr of any other Govemment company, the State Govemment.] 48A. Attachment of salary or allowances of private employees.- (l) Where the property to be attached is the salary or allowances of an employee other than an employee to whom rule 48 applies, the Court, rvhere the disbursing officer of the employee is within the local timits of thc Courr,s lunsdiction, may order than the amount shall, subject to the provrsion of section 60, be withheld from such salary or allowances either in one payment or by monthly instalments as the Court may direct; and upon notice of the order to such disbursing officer, such disbursing officer shall remit to the court the amount due under the order, or the monthly instalments, as the case may be. (2) Where the attachable portion ofsuch salary or allowances is already being wlthheld or remitted to the Court in pursuance of a previous and unsatisfied order of attachment, the disbursing offrcer shall forthwith retum the subsequent order to the Court issuing it rvith a full statemcnt of all the particulars of the existing attachment. (3) Every order made under this rule, unless it is returned rn accordance rvith the provisions of sub-rule (2), shall, without further notice or other process, hind the employer while the judgment-debtors, is within the local limits to which this Codc for the time being extends and while he is bcyond those- Iimits, if hc is in receipt of salary or allowanccs payable out of the funds of an employer in any part of India, and the employer shall bc liabte for any sum paid in contravention of this rule.]

9. The aforesaid relevant provisions would reveal that for realization of the amount covered under the arbitration award, the lst respondent has to file an application under Section 36 of the Act and 9 Order XXI Rule I l(2) of CPC. Accordingly, l't respondent had filed the aforesaid Execution Petition vide E.P.No.29 of 2t)21. There is no reference with regard to mode/proportion of the amount to realize from the J.Drs. undcr Order XXI Rule 48 of CPC.

10. It is also relevant to note that Section 146 rf Contract Act, 1872 deals with liability of co-sureties to contribute equally and the same is also relevant and it is extracted below:- Section 146 of the Contract Act. 1872-Co-sureties liablt. to contribute equallv. Where two or more persons are co-sureties for the same debr or duty, either jointly or sevcrally, and whether under the same or differenr contracts, and whether with or without the knowledge of each other, the co .sureties, in the absence of any contract to the contrary, are liable, as between then.Eelves, to pay eaclr an cqual share of' the whole debt, or of that part of il \vhich remains unpaid by thc principal debtor_ I l. Therefore therc is no consideration of the atbresaid aspects by the Court below in the impugned salary attachment order dated

24.08.2022.

12. As discussed supra, l'r respondent cannot rec()ver doubte the awarded amount from the petitioners/J.Drs. and it is entitled for only award amount i.e. Rs.4,10,258l- from the J.Drs. together.

13. It is relevant to note that the leamed counsel appearing for 1., respondenl fairly admitted that 1't respondent is entitlcd for only an / l0 amount of Rs.4,10,258/- from the petitioners/J.Drs. as per the aforesaid award dated 06.01.2021 in ARB.No.18012020. The impugncd ordcr dated 29 08 2022 in E.P.No.29 of 2021 in ARB No. 180 of 2020 passed by learned V Additional District Judge, at Miryalaguda is liable to be set aside.

14. [n view of the aforesaid discussion, both the Civil Revision Petitions are allowed. The impugned order dated 24.08.2022 in E.P.No.29 of 2021 in ARB No.l80 of 2020 passed by learned V Additional District Judge, at Miryalaguda is set aside and the matter is remanded back to the leamed V Additional District Judge. Miryatagda with a direction to consider the aforesaid aspects and pass orders afresh. Liberty is also granted to l" respondent to seek recovery of the amount awarded vide award dated 06.01.2021 in ARB.No.l80 of 2020 proportionately from the petitioners herein/ J.Drs.2 and 3. Consequently, miscellaneous Petitions, if any, pending, shall also stand closed. Date:02.03.2023 Note: L.R. Copy to be marked. \ryr K. LAKSHMAN, J