The High Court · 2025

('ounsr'l lor thc Pctitior.rcr: Sri Narsi Re,clclr, ['csar;: (-ortnsel fot tht' RcsIronclent No. l: Sri N.Srikanth GoucJ I irt,' Cou rt nra,.lt, the flrl Iorv irrq: ()lt D t,It HON'BLE SIII JUSTICE LAXMI NARAYANA AI,ISIIETTY CIVIt, REVISION P ETITION No.2832 of 2024 OITDER: This Civil Revision Petition is filed aggrieved by order dated

01.08.2024, passed by VI Junior Civil Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad, in E.P.No.97 ol' 2024 in E.P.No.230 of 2022 ln ABR/CF.No.247 ol 1018, whereunder warrant was issued under Order XXI Rule 48 CPC attaching the salary of the petitioner.

2. When the matler is taken up lor hearing. Sri Narsi Reddy Pesara, learned counsel fbr thc petitioner, submitted that the issue involved in this I{evision Petition is squarely covered by judgment of this Court in Prattipali Srinivasa Rao Vs. Shriram City Union Finance Ltd, Kottutl und otherst ancl prayed this Court to dispose of the present Civil Revision Petition in tenns of the said judgment.

3. Sri N.Srikanth Goud. learned counsel for respondent No.l, has not opposed the said sr,rbnrission.

4. In view of the above submissions, this Civil Revision Petition is allowed, in terrns ol the judgrnent passed by this Coun in Prattipoli Srinivasr Roo's case (cited supra), and the impugned ' 2oz3(4) ALD s3s(rs) .- 2 L\:.4. J CRP.:\'o )832 oI20)l order is set aside and the matter is remanded to the trial court with a direction to pass orders afresh in accordance with law duly considering the aspects as mentioned in praftipati Srinivasa Rao,s case (cited supra).

5. Pending Miscellaneous Applications, if any, shall srand dismissed. No costs. // tr<uECOPY// Sd/. MOHD. ISMAIL ASSISTANT REGISTRAR CTION OFFICITi Io,

1. The VI .[urrior C--ivil Jurlge, Ciity Civil Court, Hyderabatl 2. One ( C to Sri Narsi Rtrlcly Pesara, Acivocatc [OPUCJ 3. One. CC to Sri N,Srikanth Goucl, Advocate [OPUC] 4. I rvo CD Co1-ri1,5. (Annex .r copv of order dated 28.02.2023 in C.R.P.No.133 & 151 of 2023.) ICK/gll I IICTJ COUR I DATED:31/07/2025 ORDIR CRI).No.2832 of 2021 Allow,ing the C.R.t . n,ithout costs @ +r-. ,}Et1 T4 o u 7 + 1E NHN 7025 .^i eC THE IIONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE K.LAKSHMAN CML RLVISION PETITION NOs.133 AND 151 OF 2023 COMN{ON ORDER Heard Sri Nageshwar Rao Pujari, learned counsel for the petitioners in both the revisions and Sri N.Srikanth Goud, leamed counsel appearing for respondent No.I . Perused the record.

2. Questioning thc order dated 24.08.2022 in E.P.No.29 of 202 t in ARB No. I 80 of 2020 passed by learned V Additional District Judge, at Miryalaguda, thc petitioners herein in both the revisions/J.Drs. 2 and 3 therein have fllcd the albresaid revisions. Facts I he case:-

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

06.01 .202 I passed in arbitration application vide ARB No. I 80/2020 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 finality. Therefore, l" respondent/Decreeholder had filed an Execution Petition vide E.P.No.29 o[2021 under Section 36 of the Act seeking execution of the said award. Vide order dated 24.08.2022, learned V Additional District -l Judge at Miryalaguda has passed an order of attachment of salary of both the petitioners to an extent ol 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 Lingagiri Village, Huzurnagar Mandal, Suryapet District, to withhold the said sum from the salary of the petitioners in 24 monthly instalments and to remit the same to the said Court. Challenging the said ordcr, the petitioners have filed the present revisions.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioners in both the revisions would submit that the petitioners have not filcd any application undcr Seotion 34 of the Act and however, the l" respondent/Decreeholder cannot seek execution of the aforesaid award dated 06.01.2021 to recover decree amount of Rs.4,10,258/- each from both the petitioners. It amounts to double the decree amount. The said fact was not considered by the Court below while passing impugned order dated 24.08.2022. Even 1'1 respondent did not mention the said aspect while filing Execution Petition under Section 36 of the Act. With the said submissions, he sought to set aside both the orders.

5. Whereas, learned counsel appearing for l'1 respondent would submit that l"' respondent had filed E.P.No.29 of 2021 under Section { 36 of the Act in terms of Order XXI Rule 48 of CPC, wherein there is no provision to seek execution of the award by mentioning the amount proportionately. Therefore, lst respondent had filed EP in terms of Order XXI rule 48 of CPC. Considering the said fact, 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 I't respondent to recover the award amount from both the petitioners.

6. There is no dispute that on the application filed by l'1 respondent vide ARB No. I 80/2020, order datcd 06.01 .2021 was pasSed by the Arbitrator awarding an amount of Rs.4,10,258/- along with the interest at the rate of 18% fiom 12.02.2020 to 16.09.2021 on the said amount lrom the petitioners and J. Dr.l .

7. No application under Section 34 of 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" respondent had filed Execution Petition vide E.P.No.29 of 2021 under Section 36 read with Order XXI Rule I l(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 impugned order, leamed Judge, directed the Drawing Ofhcer to - withhold an amount of Rs.4,10,258/- each from both the petitioners/ J.Dn.2 and 3. If the said amount is recovered, it would be Rs.8,20,5 l6l- which is impermissible. l't 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 purpose of considering the lis in the present revisions and it is extractcd below:- Scction 36:-Enforcement. the time for making an application to sa aside the arbitral Award under section 34 has expired, or such application having been made, it has been refused, the award shall be enforced under the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (5 ol 1908) in the same marmer as ilit werc a decree ofthe Court. -Where (2) Where an application to set aside the arbitral award has becn filed in thc Court under section 34, the filing o[ such an application shall not by itsclf render that award unenforceable, unless the Court gfants an order oI stay of the operation ol the said arbitral award in accordance with thc provisions of sub-section (3), on a separate application made for that purposc. (3) Upon filing of an application under sub-section (2) for stay of the operation of lhe arbitral award, the Court may, subjecl to such conditions as it may deem fit, grant stay of the operation of such award for reasors to be recorded in writing: Provided that the Cou( shall, while considering the application lor grant of stay in the case of an arbitral award for payment of money, har e due regard to the provisions for grant of stay of a money decree under thc provisions of the Code of Civil Procedure. 1908 (5 of 1908). Order XXI Rule I t (2) of CPC:- Written application- Save as otherwise provided by sub-rule( l), every application for the execution of a decree shall bc in writinu. signed and verified by the applicant or by some othcr person proved to the satisfaction ol the Court to be acquainted with the facts of the case, and shall contaiq in a tabular form the following particulars, namely- (a) the number of the suit; (b) the names ofthe parties; (c) the date of the decree; (d) whether any appeal has been prelerred irom the decree; (e) whether any, and (if any) what, payment or orher adjustment of the matter in controversy has been made betwecn the parties subsequently to the decree; (0 whether any, and (if any) 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) duc upon rhe decree, or other relief granted thereby, together with particulars ol any cross-decree, whether passed before or after the date of the decree sought to be executed; (h) the amount of the costs (if any) arvarded; (i) the name of the person against whom execution of the decree is sought; 0) the mode in which the assistance oi the Court is reiluired whcther- (D (ir) by the delivcry ofany property specifically decreed; by the attachment, or by rhe attachment and sale, or by the sale without attachment. of any property; (iiD by the arrest and detention in prison ofany person; (it) (v) by the appointment ofa receiver; otherwise, as the nature ofthc reliefgranted may require. Order XXI Rule 48 of CPC Attachment of salarv or allon.ances of senant of the Goyerument or railway company or local authorify.- ( I ) Where the property to be attached is the salary or allowances of a servant of the Govemment or of a servant of a 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 Covemment company 1 --I as defined in section 617 ofthe Companies Act, 1956 (1 of 1956)l the Court, whether the judgment-debtor or the disbursing officer is or is not within the local limits of the Court's jurisdiction, may order that thc amount shall, subject to the provisions of section 60, be withheld from such salary or allowances cither in one payment or by monthly instalments as the Court may direct; and upon notice of the order to such officer as the approPriate Govemment may by notification in the Official Gazette apPoint in this behalf,- (a) where such salary or allowances are to be disbursed within Ihe 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 renit to the Court the amount due under the order, or the monthly instalments, as the case may be: (b) where such salary or allowances are to be disbursed beyond the said limits, the officer or other person within those limits whose duty it is to instruct the disbursing authority regarding the amount of lhc salary or allowances to be disbursed shall remit to the Court the amount duc undcr the order, or thc monthly instalments, as the case may be, and shall direct the disbursing authority to reduce the aggregate of the amounts from time to time, to be disbursed by the ag$egate oF the amounts frorn time to tin" remitted to the Court. (2) Where the attachable proportion of such salary or allowances is already being withheld and remitled to a Court in pursuance of a previous and unsatished order of attacllment, the officer appointed by the appropriatc Govemment in this behalf shalt forthwith retum the subsequcnt order to thc Court issuing it with a full statement of all the particulars ol the existing attacl)ment. (3) Every order made under this rule, unless it is returned in accordaace with the provisions of sub-rule (2) shall, without further notice or otller process. bind the appropriate Govemment or the railway comPany or krcal authority or corporation of Govemment company, as the case may be, rvhile the judgment-debtor is within the local limits to which this Codc 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 ol India or the Consolidated Fund of the State or the funds of a railway company or local authority or corporation or Govemment company in India; and thc appropriate Government or the railway company or local authority or corporation or Govemment company, as the case may be, shall be liable lor any sum paicl in contravention of this rule. IExplanation.-[n this rule, "appropriate Govemment" means,- I (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 corporatioo engaged in any trade or industry which is established by a Central Act, or any sorvaot of a Covemmcnt company in which any part of tlie share capital is held by the Central Govemment or by more than one State Govemments or partly by the Central Govemment and partly by one or more State Govemments, the Central Govenlment; (ii) As respects any other servant of the Govemment, 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 servant of any other Covemment company, the State Covemment.] 48A. Attachment of salary or allorvances of private cmplol ees.- (l) Where the property to be attached is the salary or allowances of an employee other than an employee to whom rule 48 applies, th€ Court, where the disbursing officer of the employee is within the local linrits of the Court's jurisdiction, may order than the amount shall, subjcct to the provision of section 60, be withheld fiom such salary or allowances either in one payment or by monthly instalments as the Court may direct; and upon notice of th6 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 of such salary or allowances is already being withheld or remitted to the Coun in pursuance of a previous and unsatisfied order of attachment, the disbursing officer shall lorthrvith retum the subsequent order to the Court issuing it with a full statement ol all the particulars of the existing attachment. (3) Every order made under this rule, unless it is rcturned in accordance with the provisions of sub-rule (2), shall, without t'urthcr notice or other process, hind the employer while the judgment-debtors, is within thc local limits to which this Code for the time being extends and whilc he is beyond those- limits, if he is in receipt of salary or allowances payable out of the funds of an employer in any part of India, and the employer shall be liable lor any sum paid in contravention of this rule.l

9. The aforesaid relevant provisions would reveal that for realization of the amount covered under the arbitration award, the ls' respondent has to file an application under Scction 36 ol the Act and .--- 9 Order XXI Rule I l(2) ol CPC' Accordingly' 1" respondent had filed the aforesaid Execution Petition vide E'P No'29 of 2021' There is no reference with regard to mode/proportion of the amount to realize from the J.Drs. under Order XXI Rute 48 of CPC'

10. It is also relevant to note that Section 146 of Contract Act' lST2dealswithliabilityofco.suretiestocontributeequallyandthe same is also relevant and it is extracted below:- liable to c ntrib c tA 1872-C ureti 146 S equallv. Where two or more persons are co-sureties for the same debt or duty' either iointlv or severallv. and whether under the same or different contracts"ahd ttt. knowledge of each other' the co-sureties' in thc ;;il".";;;;r-;iino*i contract to the contrary, are liable' as between themselves' to ;;;;;; "a;ry "" "q*f share of the whole iebt' or of that part ol it which remains p"y .""n unpaid bY the PrinciPal dcbtor' It. Therefore there is no consideration of the aforesaid aspects by the Court below in the impugned salary attachment ordcr dated

24.0E"2022

12. As discussed supra, 1" respondent cannot recover double the awarded amount from the petitioners/J'Drs' and it is entitled for only award amount i.e. Rs.4' 10,258/- from the J'Drs' together'

13. It is relevant to note that the learned counsel appearing for l" respondent fairty admitted that l't respondent is entitled lor only an r0 amount o[ Rs.4,10,258/- from the petitioners/J. Drs. as per the aforesaid award dated 06.01.2021 in ARB.No.l8012020. The impugned order daied29.08.2022 in E.P.No.29 of 2021 in ARB No.l80 ot2020 passed by leamed V Additional District Judge, at Miryalaguda is liable to be set aside.

14. In view of the aforesaid discussion, both thc Civil Revision Petitions are allowed. The impugned order dated 24.0g.2022 in E.P.No.29 of 2021 in ARB No.l80 of 2020 passed by tcarned V Additional District Judge, at Miryalaguda is set aside and the matter is remanded back to the learned V Additional District Judge, Miryalagda with a direction to consider the aforesaid aspects and pass orders afresh. Liberty is also granted to l't respondent to seek recovery of the amount awarded vide award dated 06.01.2021 in ARB.No.lg0 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. r.vr K. LAKSHMAN, J