Syndicate Bank, RO, Vijayawada v. MBH Prasad & Ors.

THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE A. GOPAL REDDY C.R.P.No. 5871 of 2010 O r d e r: This revision petition is directed against the dismissal of E.A.No. 648 of 2009 in E.A.No. 174 of 2009 in E.P.No. 62 of 2006 in O.S.No.2504 of 2004 by the learned II Additional Junior Civil Judge, Vijayawada.

2. For due execution of the money decree obtained by the first respondent/DHr against the second respondent/JDr, E.P.No. 62 of 2006 was filed and attachment of salary of the second respondent, who is an employee in Syndicate Bank, Sullurpet branch, Nellore District, was sought under Order XXI Rule 48 CPC. As the second respondent/JDr was remained ex parte the attachment was served the garnishee i.e., the Accounts Officer/Branch Manager, Syndicate Bank, Sullurpet Branch, the third respondent herein, on 22-2-2007. The said attachment was made absolute on 1-10-2007. Later, the first respondent-DHR filed E.A.No. 799 of 2007 to send for the attachment of the salary of the second respondent/JDr which was lying with the Garnishee and it was served on the garnishee on 7-8-2008 and in spite of the same the Garnishee did not remit the amounts recovered from the JDR. As the garnishee failed to comply with the orders dated:22-07-2007 the DHR filed E.A.No. 174 of 2009 for attachment of the salary of the garnishee i.e., Accounts Officer/Branch Manager, Syndicate Branch, Sullurpet Branch, Nellore District. It is submitted that E.A.No. 174 of 2007 was allowed on 18-08-2009 for attachment of the movables of the petitioner, as they are situated within the jurisdiction of the executing court for realisation of the decreetal amount under Order XXI Rule 48 (3) C.P.C.

3. To set aside the said order of attachment passed against the petitioner, E.A.No. 648 of 2009 is filed by the petitioner herein contending that the first respondent/DHr has not taken steps for issuing notice to the higher authorities of the third respondent for compliance of the attachment order and the court of II Additional Junior Civil Judge, Vijayawada has no territorial jurisdiction to order for attachment of the movables of the petitioner. It also submitted that there is no relationship of debtor and creditor between the petitioner and the first respondent and the Sullurpet Branch, Nellore District i.e., the third respondent is attached to the Regional Office, Nellore District and therefore, the movables of the petitioner cannot be attached. As against the dismissal of the said petition, the present revision is filed.

4. The learned counsel for the petitioner contends that no notice whatsoever was issued the petitioner before passing attachment order and it is the duty of the third respondent/Garnishee to instruct the drawing officer to attach the salary of the second respondent/JDr and remit the same the court. As the second respondent is not working under the control of the petitioner, the court at Vijayawada has no jurisdiction to attach the movables of the petitioner and therefore, the order impugned is liable to be set aside.

5. Smt. A.Chaya Devi, learned counsel appearing for the first respondent/DHr substantiates the impugned order contending that as the petitioner is a Company Corporate under the control of the Central Government, the executing court has rightly passed an order for attachment of the property for due realization of the amounts as the garnishee failed recover the salary of the second respondent/JDr in spite of the order dated:22-07-2007. Order XXI rule 43 (3) provides for attachment of salary or allowances of a servant of the Government or Railway Company or local authority, which include a government company specified under sections 16 and 17 of the Companies Act. Sub-Rule (3) of Rule 48 of Order XXI reads as follows: railway company or (3) Every order made under this Rule, unless it is returned in accordance with the provisions of sub-rule (2), shall without further notice or other process, bind the appropriate government or local authority or corporation or Government company, as the case may be, while the judgment debtor is within the local limits to which this code for the time being extends and while he is beyond those limits, if he is in receipt of any salary or allowances payable out of the Consolidated Fund of India or the Consolidated Fund of the State or the funds of a railway company or local authority or corporation or Government company in India; and the appropriate government or the railway company or local authority or corporation or government company, as the case may be, shall be liable for any sum paid in contravention of this rule. Explanation: In this rule “appropriate Government” means: i) As respects any person in the service of the Central government, or any servant of a railway administration or of a cantonment authority or of the port authority of a major port, or any servant of a corporation engaged in any trade or industry which is established by a Central Act, or any servant of a Government company in which any part of the share capital is held by the central Government or by more than one State Governments or partly by the Central Government and partly by the one or more State Governments, the Central Government. ii) As respects any other servant of the government, or a servant of any other or local authority, or any servant of a corporation engaged in any trade or industry which is established by a provisional or State Act, or a servant of any other Government company, the State Government.

6. Since it is not in dispute that Syndicate Bank is a government company, any order made under Order XXI unless it is returned in accordance with the provisions of Sub-rule (2) shall, without further notice or other process bind the appropriate government or the company, as the case may be, while the JDR is within the local limits to which this Code for the time being extends and the government company is liable for any sum paid in contravention of the said attachment.

7. In view of the above facts and circumstances of the case and legal position the order passed by the learned II Additional Junior Civil Judge, Vijayawada in E.A.No. 648 of 2009 in E.A.No. 174 of 2009 in E.P.No. 62 of 2006 in O.S.No.2504 of 2004 does not suffer from any infirmity or illegality in exercise of its jurisdiction warranting interference by this court.

8. In the result the revision petition is dismissed. No costs. ____________________ A. GOPAL REDDY, J. April 1, 2011. *BVS THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE A. GOPAL REDDY C.R.P.No. 5871 of 2010 April 1, 2011.