The High Court · 2025

3. Neerla Sridhar, S/o. Rajamallu, Age. 28 Years, Occu- Business, Om Sai Paints, Peddapalli, Rl/o. H.No. 7-56, Kalwacherla, Mdl, Ramagiri, Dist- Peddapalli. ...Respondent Nos.2 & 3/Judgment Debtor Nos.1 & 2

4. Muthyala Srinivas, S/o. Lakshmaiah, Age. 42 Years, Occu. Business, M/s. SaiTefa Auto and Oil store, Peddapalli, R/o. H.No. 2-1-10016, Rajeev Road, Peddapalli.

5. Akula Sadaiah, S/o. Venkataiah, Age. 42 Years, Occu. Supportman, Employee code, 02928482, O/o. The Singareni Collieries company Ltd , N.C.W.A., RKNT lncline, Srirampur Area, RJo- H.No. 4-87, Kothur, Mdl, Dharmaram, Dist. Peddapalli.

6. Muthyala Ramesh Kumar, S/o. Laxmaiah, Age. 38 Years, )ccu. Business, Sri LaxmiSai electrical and Sanitory stores, Peddapalli, Vo. H.No.2-6-123, Tenuguwada, Peddapalli. ...Respondent Nos.4, 5 & G/Judgment Debt rr Nos.4, 5 & 6 & 2

7. The General lvlanager, SCCL, Ramagundam lll Area, Pe,j lapalli District. .Respondent No.7 lA NO: 1 OF 2025 Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the cir )umstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Cour: nay be pleased to suspend the operation of the Order dated O2.O7.2025 in E.1) No.134 of 2O25 in A,R.B.No.449 of 2O2O, passed by the Principal Junior Civil Jtrr ge, at Karimnagar, pending disposal of the above CRP. Counsel for the Petitioner: SRI G.RAMESH Counsel for the Respondent No.l: SRI N AMARNATH Counsel for the Respondent Nos.2 to 7 : None appeared The Court made the following: OROER THE HONOT]RABLE SRI JUSTICE N.TUKARAMJT CML REVISION PETITION No.3238 of 2025 ORDER This Civil Revision Petition has been frled challenging the order dated 02.07.2025 passed in E.P. No. 134 of 2025 in A.R.B. No. 449 of 2020 on the file of the learned Principal Junior Civil Judge, Karimnagar. The revision petitioner is Judgment Debtor No.3. The Execution Petition was instituted by Respondent No. l, the Decree Holder, seeking attachment of the petitioner's salary in execution of the decree passed in A.R.B. No. 449 of 2020.

2. I have heard Mr.G.Ramesh, leamed counsel flor the petitioner and Mr.N.Amarnath, leamed counsel for the respondent No.l.

3. The grounds urged by the revision petitioner are summarized as follows: (a)'Ihe petitioner \ras not served with notice or summons prior to the issuance of the impugned attachment warrant in the execution 2 proceedings. Consequently, the petitioner was derived of an opportunity to present his case before the Executing C< urt. (b) The petitioner further submits that even in the arbitral proceedings, no notice was served upon him, and the r bitral award was passed ex parte, without his knowledge or particill tion (c) It is additionally contended that Respondent Nc. 5/Judgment Debtor passed away on 07.05.2025; however, Respc rdent No. I continued the proceedings without bringing this fact cr record. The death of Respondent No. 5 was neither noted in the rr bitral award nor in the execution proceedings. On these grounds, t re petitioner prays for setting aside the irnpugned order, contenrti tg that it is contrary to settled principles of law.

4. Lcarned counscl firr Respondent No. l/Det ree Holder, further contends that thr: arbitral award was pass( I after due compliance with thc prc:icribed procedural formalities and that the award rvas ncvcr challcngcd by the petitioner. He frr:her submits that thc avzard rvas duly communicated to the Exec rtion Court, which, upon such conmunication, issued the attachr tent warant along with notice to the petitioncrr. Hence, the proced: e adopted is - 3 in conformity with Order XXI Rule 22 CPC. It is further argued that the petitioner is jointly and severally liable along with the other judgment debtors, and therefore, the Decree Holder is well within his rights to proceed against the petitioner in execution. In the absence of any sustainable grounds, leamed counsel urges that this Civil Revision Petition is devoid of merit and is liable to be dismissed.

5. I have perused the materials on r€cord.

6. The petitioner contends that no notice was served upon him, as judgment debtor, prior to the issuance of the attachment order. It is an admitted fact that the arbitral award was passed on

09.10.2024 and that the execution petition was filed on I I .06.2025 -lhese undisputed facts establish that the execution petition was instituted well within two years from the date of the decree

7. Order XXI Rule 22 of the Code of Civil Procedure (CPC) mandates issuance of notice to the judgment debtor in specific situations. For ready reference, the provision reads as follows:

8. Order XXI Rule 22 CPC-Notice to show cause against executlon ln certain cases- 4 (l) Where an application for execution is made; (a) more than two years after the date of th: decree; or (b) against the legal representative of a party to tt: decree; or (c) against the assignee or receiver in insolvency, wir:re the party to the decree has been adjudged insolvent, the Court t xecuting the decree shall issue a notice to the person against whoro execution is applied for, requiring him to show cause, on a date to t e fixed, why the decree should not be executed against him: Proviso. No such notice shall be necessary in consequ :nce of more than two years having elapsed between the date of t: : decree and the application for execution il the application is mal : within two years from the date ofthe last order against thejudgnt,,nt debtor on a previous execution application; nor ts such noti e necessary against the legal representative ol-a judgment debtor if execution has already been ordered asainst hirn in a prior apptica ion (2) Nothing in the lorcgoing sub-rule precludes the Court from lssulng process in execution of a decree without ;uch notice, provided reasons are recorded that issuance of noticr: would cause undue delay or deleat the cnds oljustice. 5

9. From a plain reading ofthe above provision, it iS evident that issuance of notice is mandatory only when the execution petition is filed after two years of the decree, or against legal representatives, assignees, or receivers in insolvency. In the present case, since the execution petition was filed within two years of the award, none of the statutory contingencies under Order XXI Rule ZZ CpC are attracted. Accordingly, the simultaneous issuance of notice and the warrant of attachment of the petitioner's salary by the executing Court cannot be faulted. This Court, therefore, finds no illegality or procedural infirmity in the said course of action.

10. With respect to the second contention regarding the arbitral award, it is undisputed that the petitioner has not challenged the award till date. [t is a well-settled proposition of law that the executing Court cannot go behind the decree (see, Hiralat patni v. Kali Nath, AIR 1962 SC 199). Once an award has attained finality, the executing Court is bound to enforce it as it stands, without reopening issues decided therein. Hence, objections raised by the petitioner at the stage of execution cannot serve as a substitute for challenging the arbitral award under the Arbitration and 6 Conciliation Act, 1996. Consequently, this ( tjection is unsustainable. ll. As to the plea conceming the death of Re; rondent No. 5/Judgment Debtor No. 5 on 07.05.2025, it is pertinen to note that the said death occuned subsequent to the passing o the arbitral award dated 09.10.2024. Thus, the fact of death has n r bearing on the validity of the award. Further, since the presl rt execution petition has been filed against Judgment Debtol No. 3, the executing Court rightly proceeded against him withorr reference to the death of Judgment Debtor No. 5. tf at all any' ronsequence flows from such death, it accrues only to the estate ;f Judgment Debtor No. 5 and not to the benefit of the pr()r ent revision petltroner.

12. The further contention that the decree holder )ught not to have proceeded solely against Judgment Debtor No. 3 is equally untenable. The arbitral award has fixed liabilitl lointly and severally upon all judgment debtors. It is well-settlerl that in cases ofjoint and several liability, the decrce holder has th,: discretion to proceed against any one or more of the judgment debt 'rs (see State 7 Bank of India v. lndexport Registered, (1992) 3 SCC 159). Neither the judgment debtor nor the executing Court can dictate the manner in which execution is to be levied. The plea that the decree holder should first exhaust remedies against other judgment debtors has no legal foundation.

13. In light of the foregoing discussion, this Court holds that the objections raised by the revision petitioner are devoid of merit. No illegality or jurisdictional error is found in the impugned order warranting interference in exercise of revisional jurisdiction.

14. Accordingly, this Civil Revision Petition is dismissed. Miscellaneous Petitions, pending if any, shall stand closed. //TRUE COPY// To,

1. Principal Junior Civil Judge, at Karimnagqr^-, ,^, i. One CC to SRI N.AMARNATH Advocate [OPUUI 3. Two CD CoPies W, NVB/SA Gol- c. DEEPTKA ASSISTANT REGISTRAR /ae SECTION OFFICER HIGH COURT DATED:2310912025 ORDER CRP.No.3238 of 2025 :iR TFI t: t 1t I N 202[ vz. .6) * * S,t CI DISMISSING THE CIUL REVISION PETII ION (t )) 11 -.1 ,)