The High Court · 2025

1. M/s Shriram Finance Ltd., Karrmnagar-l Branch, Rep. By its Authorised Signatory-Cum-GPA Holder, P.Vidyasagar, S/o Narayana, a/a 52 yrs, R/o Karimnagar (Town and District), Telangana State. ResondenUDecree Holder

2. Mr. Pachunuri Chandra Mohan, S/o Hanumandlu, R/o H.No.2-10-1198, Jyothinagar, Karimnagar, Karimnagar District, Telangana State.

3. Mr. K.Gangadhar, S/o Rajesham, R/o H.No.i-92, Myadapally Village, Mallial Mandal, Karimnagar District, Telangana State. (Respondents No.2 and 3 are not necessarq parties in this Revision Petition) RESPONDENTS/ Judgment Debtors No. 1 & 3 lA NO: 2 OF 2025 Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Cqurt may be pleased to STAY of all further proceedings, including Salary Attachment of the Petitioner/JD.No.2 in ARB.E.P.No.44 OF 2024 lN ABR.CASE No.736 OF 2013 on the file of I Addl. District Judge, at Karimnagar, pending disposal of CRP. Counsel for the Petitioner : SRl. P VENKANNA Counsel for the Respondent-1 : N SRIKANTH GOUD The Court made the following: ORDER THE HONOURABLE SRIJUSTTCE N. TUK \RAMJI CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.2 527 o1' 2025 ORDER: This Civil Revision petition is f trd by the petitioner/judgment debtor No.2 with a prayerto al r w the revision by setting aside the Warrant of Salary Aftarhment dated 11.06.2025 in ARB E.p.No.44 of 2024 in ARB C: se No.736 of 2013 on the file of the lAdditional District Judge, Krl jmnagar. 2. Heard Mr. p Venkanna, learned counsel f,t the revision petitioner and Mr. N. Srikanth Goud, learned co rnsel for the respondent No. 1/decree_holder

3. Briefly stated, the relevant facts are that resg ondent No.1 initiated arbitration proceedings before the Sole Arbitrator in Arbitration Case No. 736 of 2013. These proceedinr; ; culminated in an Award dated 2g.06.2014. Thereafter, respond: rt No. j filed Execution petition No.44 of 2024 seeking enforce nent of the Award by way of salary attachment. 4 Learned counsel for the revision petitioner s tbmits that respondent No.2 had availed a loan of Rs.2,00 0OO/_ froff ., 2 Y \ respondent No.1/Company, for which the revision petitioner and respondent No.3 stood as sureties. The sole ground urged by the petitioner is that the execution petition has been instituted nearly ten years after the Award. Notwithstanding this delay, the executing court, without properly examining the question of valid service of notice under Order XXI Rule 22 oI the Code of Civil Procedure (CpC) upon the revision petitioner, proceeded to order salary attachment. Counsel further points out that, according to the execution petition, the petitioner was shown as employed at the Primary Health Centre, Hasanparthi. However, the petitioner had been transferred on 13.06.2018 to CD Dharoor Camp, Jagtial, where he continues to serve. The record clearly reflects that the Rule 22 notice was sent to the primary Health Centre, Hasanparthi, and was returned with the endorsement ,refused., Treating such return as valid service, proceeded further, which, according to counsel, is ex facie rmproper. lt is also contended that the Court failed to follow the mandatory procedure before tssutng a warrant of salary attachment. Hence, interference of this Court is prayed for the executing Court

5. ln response, learned counsel for respondent Nr 1 contends that the notice was dispatched to the address furri ;hed in the contract, and as it was returned with the endorsem -' rt 'refused,' the executing Court was justified in treating the servrr e as proper and proceeding in accordance with law. Tl r refore, no interference is warranted.

6. I have perused the materials on record 7 . The foundational facts, namely, the initiatic,r of arbitral proceedings in 2013, the passing of the Award in 2( 14, and the filing of the execution petition in 2024, are born{) out by the record.

8. Under Order XXI Rule 22 of lhe Code of Civi procedure, 1908, issuance of a show cause notice is marrr atory when execution is Sought after the lapse of two years fror the date of the decree or award. ln the present case, the exec rtion petition discloses that notice was sent to the address sh )wn therein, namely, the Primary Health Centre, Hasanparthi, :r rd the same was returned with the endorsement ,refused.' Tl e executing 4 \ Court, relying upon this endorsement, treated the notice as duly served and proceeded with the attachment of salary.

9. However, the revision petitioner has produced a copy of the relieving letter dated '1 3.06.2018, which explicitly demonstrates that he had been transferred and was, at the relevant time, serving at the Office of the Medical Officer, Community Health Centre, CD Dharoor Camp, Jagtial. ln that view, the refusal endorsement on the notice sent to the earlier place of posting cannot, in law, be construed as proper service. Consequently, the petitioner's contention that he was deprived of an opportunity to place his explanation before the executing Court merits acceptance. The finding of the executing Court treating such service as valid, and thereafter issuing a warrant of salary attachment, therefore requires reconsideration. This Court accordingly finds sufficient ground for interference 10 ln the result, the revision petition is ordered as follows: i) The impugned docket order dated 05.11.2024 and the Warrant of Salary Attachment dated 1 1.06.2025 are hereby set aside. The revision petitioner, who is now fully aware of the proceedings, shall be deemed to have been served with ) notice under Order XXI Rule 22 CPC and is ,lirected to appear before the executing Court and file his r xplanation within four weeks from the date of receipt of a c:py of this order. ii) Upon receipt of such explanation, the exer:r ting Court shall consider the same on its merits and procee I further in accordance with law. iii) There shall be no order as to costs. As a sequel, miscellaneous petitions, if any, per ding in this civil revision petition shall stand closed. I DI. A.PRATHIMA Df I UTY REGISTRAR ,/_.-_ //TRUE COPY// \ ;ECTION OFFICER To,

1. The I Additional Distrcit Judge, Karimnagar. 2. One CC to SRl. P VENKANNA Advocate [OPUC] 3. One CC to SRI N SRIKANTH GOUD Advocate [OPUC] 4. Two CD Copies PSL kr HIGH COURT DATED:1910812025 ORDER CRP.No.2527 ot 2025 I .. -::'-: ", c ;$ 37 N ?t2[ I JA ,; 'il -=..-- ./ ORDERING THE CRP G .oecA k"