The High Court · 2025

Counsel for the Petitioners: Sri Rahul Shivram Mane. Counsel for the Respondent No.1: Sri Narsi Reddy Pesara. The Court made the following: ORDER HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE LAXMI NARAYANA ALISHETTY CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.2996 of 2024 ORDER: This Civil Revision Petition is filed aggrieved by' order dated

08.12.2023, passed by VII Junior Civil Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad, in E.P.No.10l4 of 2023 in ABR/CF.No.562 of 2022, whereunder warrant was issued under Order XXI Rule 48 CPC , attaching the salaries of the petitioners. I I I l I

2. When the nratter is taken up for hcaring, Sri Rahul Shivran.r Mane, lean'red counsel fbr the petitioners, submitted that the issue involved in this Revision Petition is squarely covered by judgment of this Courl in Praltipati Srinivasa Rao Vs. Shriram City Union Finance Lttt, Kotlatl und otherst and prayed this Court to dispose of the present Civil Revision Petition in terms of the said judgment

3. Sri Narsi Reddy Pesara, leamed counsel for respondent No. I , has not opposed the said submission

4. ln view of the above submissions, this Civil Revision Petition is allowed, in terms of the judgment passed by this Court in Prattipati Srinivasa Rao's case (cited supra), and the impugned I zoz3(4) ALD s3s(TS) 2 LNt1. J CRP.No.2996 of2024 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 prartipati srinivaso Rao,s case (cited supra).

5. Pending Miscellaneous Applications, if any, shall stand dismissed. No costs. / /TRUEC]PY/ / sd/- v. ASSISTANT RE KAVITHA I GISTRAR / ECTION OFFICER /r i I To,

1. The VII Junior civil ]udge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad 2. One CC to Sri Rahul Shivram Mane, Advoca te [OPUC] 3. One CC to Sri Narsi Reddy Pesara, Advoca te [OPUC] 4. TwoCDCo PleS (Put up a copy of Common Order dated 28.02.2O2j in CRp.Nos.133 & 151 of 2023) ICK/sh {n- I \ HIGH COURT DATED:31/01./2025 ORDER CRP.No.2996 o12024 Allowing the C.R.I'. without costs. (* b L\ \b ,... i(, t,.f "/, '.-' //.) t! o ll. !:l G n t I + a!!/ .$' .\ \rs \ .l * H , TIIE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE K.LAKSHMAI\ CIVIL REVISION PETITION NOs.l33 AND l5l OF 2023 COMMONORDER Heard Sri Nageshwar Rao Pujari, leamed counsel for the petitioners in both the revisions and Sri N.Srikanth Goud, leamed counsel appearing lor respondent No.l. Perused the record

2. Questioning the order dared24.08.2022 in E.P.No.29 of 2021 in ARB No.180 of 2020 passed by learned V Additional District Judge, / at Miryalaguda, the petitioners herein in both the revisions/J.Drs. 2 and 3 therein have filed the aforesaid revisions Facts of the case:-

3. On the application filed by l't respondent, an award dated

06.01.2021 passed in arbitration application vide ARB No.l80/2020 under Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (for short, the Act'), against the petitioners and Smt.Prathipati Shirisha (J.Dr.No.l). They have not filed any application under Section 34 of the Act challenging the said award and it attained finaliry. 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,learned, V Additional District ,] 3 *ii* Judge at Miryalaguda has passed an order of attachment of salary of both the petitioners to an extent of Rs.4,10,2581- due to the Decreeholder under the Degree. The leamed Judge also required the Drawing Officer i.e. Head Master in ZPHS School at Lingagiri Village, Hrzurnagar Mandal, Suryapet District, to withhold thc saicl sum from the salary of the petitioners in 24 monthly instalments and to remit the same to the said Court. Challenging the said order, the petitioners havc filed the present revisions.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioners in both the revisions would sLrbmit that the petitioners have not filed any application under Scction 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 anrounts to double the decree amount. The said fact was not considcrcd by the Court below while passing impugned order dated 24.08.2022. Even l " 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, leamed counsel appearing for 1"t respondent would submit that 1't respondent had filed E.P.No.29 of 2O2l under Secrion 4 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 l't respondent to recover the award amount from both the petitioners.

6. There is no dispute that on the apptication filed by I't rcspondent vide ARB No. 180/2020, order dated 06.01 .2021 was passcd 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 thc said amount from the petitioners and J.Dr.1 .

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, 1't respondent had filed Execution Petition vide E.P.No.29 of 2021 under Section 36 read with Order XXI Rule ll(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 r : 5 impugned order, learned Judge, directed the Drawing 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 be Rs.8,20,5 l6l which is impermissible. l" respondent is entitled for only Rs,4,10,258/- i.e. award amount from the.petitioners herein/J.Drs, togcther.

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 thc lis in the present revisions and it is extracted below:- Scction 3(r;-lln fbrcemcnt. the time for making an applicirtion to sct asidc the arbilral Award under section 34 has expired, or such application having bccn rnadc, it has been refused, the award shall be enforccd under the Codc of Civil Procedure, 1908 (5 of 1908) in the same maffler as rf it were a decrec of thc (irurt. -Wherc (2) Where an application to ser aside the arbitral award has been flled in the Court undcr section 34, the fiting of such an application shall mrt by itselt render that arvard unenforceable, unless the Court grants an order of stay of the operation ol'the said arbitral award in accordance with the provisions of sub-section (l), on a separate application made for that purpose. (3) Upon filing ol an application under sub-section (2) for sray of the opcration of the arbitral arvard, the Court may, subject to such conditions as it may deem fit, grant stay of the operation of such award for reasons to be rccordcd in rvriting: Provided that the Court shall, rvhile considering the application for grant of stay in thc case of an arbitral award for payment of money, have due regard to the provrsrons for $ant of stay of a money decree under the provisions of thc Codc of Civit Procedure, 1908 (5 of 1908). Ordcr XXI Rule 1f (2) of CPC:- Written application- Save as otherwise provided by sub-mle(.l), every application lor the exccution of a decree shall be in writing, signed and 6 verified by the applicant or by some other pcrson proved to the satisfaction of the Court to be aoquaintcd with thc facts of the case, 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 of the matter in controversy has been made between the parties subsequently to the decree; (f) 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; J (g) the amount with interest (if any) due upon the decree, or other relief grantcd thereby, togethcr with particulars of any cross-decree, whether passcd bcfbre or aftcr the date of the decree sought to be executed; (h) the amount of the costs (if any) awarded; (i) the name of the person against whom execution of the decree is sought; () the mode in which the assistance ofthe Court is required whether- (i) (ii) by the delivery ofany property specifically decreed; by the attachment, or by the attachment and sale, or by the sale without attachment, of any property; (iiD by the arrest and detention in prison ofany person; (iv) by the appointment ofa receiver; (v) otherwise, as the nature ofthe relief granted may require. Order XXI Rule 48 of CPC Attachment of salary or allowances of servant of the Government or railway company or Iocal authority.- (l) 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 corporarion engaged in any trade or industry which is established by a Central, Provincial or State Act, or a Govemment company I i I 1 as defined in section 617 ofthe Companies Act, 1956 (l of 1956)l the Coufi, whcther the judgment-debtor or the disbursing officer is or is not within the local limits of the Court's jurisdiction, may order that the amount shall, subject to the provisions of section 60, be withheld from such salary or allowances either in one payment or by monthly instalments as the Court may drrect; and upon noticc of the order to such officer as the appropriate Govemment may by notification in the Official Gazette appoint in this bchalf,- (a) where such salary or allowances arc to be disbursed within the local limits to which this Code for the time being extends, the officer or other person whose duty lt is to disburse the same shatl withhold and remit to the Court the amount due under the order, or the monthly instalments, as the case may bc; (b) where such salary or allowances are to be disbursed beyond the said limits, rhe off,rcer or other person within those limits whose duty it is to instruct thc disbursing authority regarding the amount of the salary or allowances to be disbursed shall remit to the Court the amount due under the order. or the monthly instalments, as the case may be, and sha direct the disbursing authority to reduce the aggregate of the amounts from time to time, to be disbursed by the aggregate ol the amounts from tin.re to time remitted to thc Court. (2) Where thc attachable proportion of such salary or allowances is alrcady bcing withheld and remitted to a Court in pursuance of a previous ald unsatisfied order of attachment, the officer appointed by the.appropriate Government in this behalf shatl forthwith retum the subsequent order to the Court issuing it with a full statement of alt the particulars of the existing attachmcnt. (3) Every order made under this rule, unless it is rehrmed in accordance with the provisions of sub-rule (2) shall, without fuilher notice or other process, bind the appropriate Govemment or the railway company or local authoriq, or corporation of Govemment 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 rvhile 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 authorify or corporation or Govcmment company in India; and thc appropriate Government or the railway company or local althoriS 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 Govemment,' means,_ 8 (i) As respccts any person in the service of the Central Govemment, or any servant of a railway administration or of a cantonmcnt authority or ofthc port authority of a major port, or any servant of a corporation engaged in any tradc or industry which is established by a Central Act, or any servant of a Govemment company in which any part of the share capital is held by the Central Govemment or by more than one State Governments or partly by the Central Govemment and partly by one or more Statc Governments, the Central Govemmen(; (ii) As respects any other servant of the Government; or a sewant 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 Government 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, where the disbursing officer of the employee is within the local limits of the Court's jurisdiction, may order than the amount shall, subject to the provision 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 aheady being withheld or remitted to the Court in pursuance of a previous and unsatisfied order of attachmcnt, the disbursing officer shall forthwith retum 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 accordance with 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 thc timc bcing extcnds and while 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 oflndia, and the employer shall be liable 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 l't respondent has to file an application under Section 36 of the Act and I I I l I i 9 Order XXI Rule 1 l(2) of CPC Accordingly, l.' respondent had filed the aforesaid Execution Petirion 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, 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 lia ble to contribute equally. ) Where two or more persons are co-sureties for the same debt or duty, either jorntly or severally, and whether under the same or diflerent contracls, and whether wirh or without the knowledge of each other, the co_sureties. in the absence of any contracl lo the contrary. are liable, as behveen themselves, to pay each an equal sharc of the whole debt, or of that part of it which remains unpaid by the principal debtor,

11. Therefore there is no consideration of the aforesaid aspects by the Court below in the impugned salary attachment order dated

24.08.2022.

12. As discussed supra, l't respondent cannot recover double the awarded amount from the petitioners/J. Drs. and it is entitlcd 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 1., respondent fairly admitted that l,t respondent is entitled for only an 10 amount of Rs.4,10,2581- from the petitioners/J.Drs. as per the aforesaid award dated 06.01.2021 in ARB.No.18012020. The impugned order dated29.08.2022 in E.P.No.29 of 2021 in ARB No.180 of 2020 passed by leamed V Additional District Judge, at Miryalaguda is liable to be set aside.

14. In 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.180 of 2020 passed by leamed V Additional District Judge, at Miryalaguda is set aside and the matter is rcmandcd 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"trespondent to seek recovery of the amount awarded vide award dated 06.01.2021 in ARB.No.180 of 2020 proportionately from the petitioners herein/ J.Drs.2 and 3. Consequently, miscellaneous Petitions, if any, pending, shall also stand closed. Date:O2.03.2023 Note: L.R. Copy to be marked. \ryr K. LAKSHMAN,J