The High Court · 2025

HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE LAXMI NARAYANA ALISHETTY CIVIL REVI SION PEI'ITIONNo .2999 of 2024 ORDER: This Civii Revision Petition is filed aggrieved by order dated

01.08.2024, passed by the Principal Junior Civil Judge at Ranga Reddy District at L.B.Nagar, in E'P'No'236 of 2022 in Dispute No.305 of 2020, whereunder wamant was issued under Order XXI Rulc 48 CPC attaching the salary of the petitioncrs'

2. When the matter is taken up for hearing' Sri Gudi Madhusudhan Reddy, learned counsel for the petitioners' submitted that the issue involved in this Revision Petition is squarely covered by judgment ol this Court in Prattipati Srinivasn I Rao Vs. Shriram City lJnion Finance Ltd, Kodad and otherst and prayed this Court to dispose of the present Civil Revision Petition in terms of the said judgment. I I I I

3. Sri Balguri Srinivas, leamed counsel for respondent No' l' has not opposed the said submissiou' ' 2023(4) ALD 535(TS) 2 1N,4, J CRP..\o.2999 of202!

4. In view of the above submissions, this Civil Revision Petition is allowed, in terms of the judgment passecl by this Court in Prattipati Srinivasa Rao,s case (cited supra), and the impugned order is set aside and the matter is remanded to the trial Court with a direction to pass orders afresh in accordance with taw duly considering the aspects as mentioned in prattipoli Srinivosa Rao,s case (cited supra).

5. Pending Miscellaneous Applications, il any, shall stand dismissed. No costs. //TRUE COPY// \ Sd/. V. KAVITHA DEPUTY REGISTRAR TION OFFICER \ To,

1. The Principal Junior Civil Judge Ranga Reddy Diskict at LB Nagar. (With records if any)

2. One CC to Sri. Gudi Madhusudhan Reddy, Advocate [OPUC] 3 One CC to Sri Balguri Srinivas, Advocate IOPUC] 4. Two CD Copies (Annex copy of order dated 28.02.2023 in CRP No. 133 & 151 of 2O23) $x'- HIGH COURT DATED:11104t202s ORDER CRP.No.2999 of 2024 C.R.P IS ALLOWED rES A 2 g ruN ?025 -* On^ -r1I g * b a IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD TUESDAY,THE TWENTY EIGHIH DAY OF FEBRUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY THREE PRESENT THE HONOUR^ABLE SRI JUSTICE K.LAKSHMAN cl VIL REVISIO PETITION NOS: 133 OF 2 o23 & 151 0F 2023 CIVIL REVISION PEflTION NO: 133 OF 2023 Petition under Section 115 of C.P.C., aggrieved by the satary attachment order dated 24.08.2022, passed in E.P.No.29 ol 2021, in Arbitration No.180 of 2020, on the file of V Additional District Judge, at Miryalaguda, Nalgonda District. Between: Prattiqati Srinivasa !ao, S/o. Prattipati Subbaiah, Aged 45 years, Occ. Employee (SGT Teacher), Ryo.18-192/8, Teachers Cotony. Huzuinagar Town, Suryapet District. Telangana. ...PETITIONER AND M/s, Shriram City Union Finance Ltd., Kodat Branch at D.No.32-197/2, Block No.32, Anu Towers, SRPT Road, Kodad -508 206. Rep. by GpA Holder cum Deputy General Manager K.Srinivasulu, S/o. Rangaiati, A6ed 44 years in Shriram City Union Finance lid., Kodad Branch. RESPONOENT/DECREE HOLDERYCLAIMANT

2. Prattipatj Shirisha, Wo.Srinivas Rao, Age 36 years, Occ: private Teacher, R/o.H.No.1-164, B.C.Colony, Yepalamadharam Village, Me acheruvu Mandal, Surypet District,Telangana

3. Prattipati Venkala Ramana Rao, S/o. Prattipati Subbaiah, Aged 48 years, Occ:Employee (S_GT Teacher), R/o. t8-192/8, GTeachers Cotony, Huzurnagar Town, Suryapet District. Telangana (Respondent No.2 and 3 are not necessary parties) ...RESPONDENTIJDR. NO.,t & 3 lA NO: 1 OF 2023 Petition under Section 5 of Limitation Act, that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to condone the delay of 49 days in filing the CRP against the salary attachment order dated 2410812023 passed in E.P.No.29 of 2021 , in Arbitrarion No.180 of 2020, on the file of V Additional District Judge, at Miryalaguda,Nalgonda District. . I I i I I i I i i I i I I I I i I I I I I t I I I : i t I I I I I lA NO: 2 OF 2023 Petitron under Section.l5l of C.P.C., praying that in the circumstances stated in t'le affidavit filed in support of the petilon, the High Court may be pleased tc, stay all further proceedings in salary auachment order dated 2410812022, passed in E.P.No.29 of 2020, ia Arbitration No.180 of 2020, on the [ile Honou.able V Additional District Court Judge, at Miryalaguda, Nalgonda District. CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO: 151 OF 2023 Petition under Section 115 ot C.P.C.. aggrieved by the salary attachmenl order dated 24 08.2022. passed in E.P,No.29 of 2021, in Arbitration No.1B0 of 2020, on the file,rF V Additional District Judge, at Miryalaguda, Nalgonda District. Between: Pratlipatr Venkata Ramana Rao, S/o. Prattipati Subbaiah, Aged 4g years. Occ Enployee (S_GT Teacher), RJo.18-192/8, GTeachers Coloriy, Huzurhagai To,vr. Suryapet District. Telanqana AND ...PETITIONER M/s Shriram City Union Finance Ltd. and 2 others, Kodal Branch at D.No.32- 197,7, Block No-32, Anu Tow€rs, SRPT Road, Kodad -S0B 206. Rep. by GpA Holder cum Deputy GeneralJr4anager K.Srinivasulu, S/o, Rangaiah; Agii 44 years in Sh.iram City Union Finance lid., Kodad Branch. RESPONDENT/DECREE HOLOERICLAIMANT 2 3 Praltrpati Shirisha, Wo.Srinivas Rao, Age 36 years, Occ: private Teacher, Rvo H.No 1-164, B.C.Colony, Yepalamadharah Vthge, Meltacheruvu Mafldal, Surypet DistI ict,Tetangana Prartipati Sriniv.a-sa_ Rao, S/o. prattipati Subbaiah, Aged 45 years, Ocr. Employee LSGT Teacher), FUo.1&192/8, Teachers Col6ny, Huzuriragii I own. Suryapet DiStrict. Tetangana. (Respondent No.2 and 3 are not necessary parties) ...RESPONDENTiJDR. NO.1 & 2 lA NO: 1 0F 2023 Petition under Section 5 of Limitation Act, that in the circumstances stated in the airr(lavrr Frted in support of th.e petition,,the Hign Court may be pleased lo condone rhe detay ot 42 days in fiting the Cnp adrNii lL" saiary attachment a , i : I I I I I I I t ! I i I I I I I I I I i ; I j : i I I order dated 24lOBt2O23 passed in E.P.No.29 or 2021, in Arbitration No 180 of 2020, on the file of V Additional Distrrct Judge, at Miryalaguda, Nalgonda District IA NO: 2 oF 2023 Petition under Section 151 of C.P.C., praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed io support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to stay all further proceedings in salary 'attachment order dated 24tOSl2O22, passed in E.P.No.29 of 2020, in Arbitration No.'180 of 2020, on the file Honourable V Additional District Court Judge, at Miryalaguda, Nalgonda District. Counsel for the Petitioner :SRl. NAGESHWAR RAo PUJARI Counsel for the Respondent No.1: SRI N. SRIKANTH GOUo (in both the cRP's) The Court made the following: COMMON ORDER I I I i I I i .I'I{I' IIONOURABt,Ii SItI JUSTICE K.LAKSHMAN CIVI L RII\/ISION PIITI'TI ON NOs.l33 AND I5l CrF 2023 COMMON OI{DIi R: Hcard Sri Nageshwar Rao Pujari, leamed counsel for the petitioners in both the rcvisions and Sri N.Srikanth Goud, leamed cou nsel appearing for respondcnt No. L Perused the record.

2. Questioning tlre order dated24.08.2022 in E.P.No.29 of 2021 in ARB No. t 80 of 2020 passed b1, learned V Additional District Judge, at Mirl'alagiuda, thc petitioners helcin in both the revisions/J.Drs. 2 and 3 therein have tlled thc atbresaid revisions. Facts olthe case:-

3. On the application tiled by l'' respondent, an award dated

06.01 .202 I passed in arbitrarion applicarion vide ARB No. 180/2020 under Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (for short, the Act'), against the petitioners and Smt.Prathipati Shirisha (J.Dr.No.l). They have not fi led any application under Section 34 of the Act challenging the said award and it attained finality. Therefore, It respondent/Decreeholder had filed an Execution petition vide E.P.No.29 ol-202 I under Section 36 olthe Act seeking execution ofthe said award. Vide order dated 24.0g.2022, Ieamed V Additional District -1 Judge at Miryalaguda has passed an order of attachment ol'salary of both the petitioners to an extent of Rs.4,10,258/- duc to thc Decreeholder under the Degree. The leamed 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 frorn the salary of the petitioners in 24 monthly instalments and to remit the same to the said Court. Challenging the said order, the petitioners have filed the present revisions.

4. Leamed counsel for the petitioners in both the revisions would submit that the petitioners have not filed any application under Section 34 ol the Act and however, the ls 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. E.ven l't 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 ltt respondent would submit that l'r respondent had filed E.P.No.29 of 2021 under Section I I t, I I -- I 16 of thc Act in terrns of Order XXI Rule 48 olCPC, wherein there is no provisior-r to scek execution of thc award by mentioning the amount proportionatcly. -fhcrefore, lst respondent had filed EP in terms of Order XXI rule 48 ol CPC. Considering the said fact. the Court below had ordered attachment ol salary. However, he fairly submits that necessary orders may be passed considering the provisions of the law to enable l'' respondent. to lecover the award amount from both the petitioners.

6. 'lhere is no dispute that on the application filed by l" respondent r ide ARU No. I 80/2020, order dated 06.0 I .2021 was passed by the Arbitrator awarding an amount of Rs.4,l 0,258/- along with the interest at the rate o1' l87o from 12.02.2020 to 16.09.2021 on the said amount fronr 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, 1'r respondent had filed Execution Petition vide E.P.No.Z9 of 2021 under Section J6 read rvith Order XX[ Rule I I (2) of CPC before the V additional District Judge, Miryalaguda, for an amount of Rs.4,10,258r- seeking execution of the aforesaid award. Thus, vide i i I i I I impugned order, leamed Judge, directed the Drawing Officer to withhold an arnount of Rs.4,10,258/- each from both the petitioners/ J.Drs.2 and 3. ll the said amount is recovered, it would be Rs.8,20,5 l6l- which is impermissible. [" respondent is entitled for only Rs.4,10,258/- i.e. award amount from the . peti.tioners herein0.Drs, together. 8- lt is relevant to note that section 36 of the Act deals with Enforcernent of Award and the same is relevant for the purpose of considering the lis in the present revisions and it is extracted below:- the time for making an application to set Section i6:-Enforcemcnt. aside thc arbitral Arvard under section l4 has expired, or such applicalion having bccn made, it has been refused, the award shall be enforced under the Codc of Civil Procedure, 1908 (5 of 1908) in the same manner as if it were a decree oI the Court. -Where (2) Whcre an application to set aside the a6itral award has been filed in the Court under section 34, the filing of such an application shall not by itself render that award unenforceable, unless the Court grants an order of stay of the opcration of the said arbitral award in accordance with the provisions of sub-section (3), on a separate application made.for that pupose. (3) Upon filing of an application under sub-section (2) for stay of the operation of the arbitral award, the Court may, subject to such conditions as it may deem fit, grant stay of the operation of such award for reasons to bc recorded in writing: Provided that the Court shall, while considering the application for grant of stay in the case of an arbitral award for payment of money, have due regard to the provisions for grant of stay of a money decree under the provisions of the Code ofCivil Procedure, 1908 (5 of 1908). Ordcr XXI Rule I I (2) of CPC:- Written application- Save as otherwise provided by sub-rul{l ), every application for the execution of a dccree shall be in writing, signed and verillcd by the applicant or b1'sorrre orher pcrson proved to thc satislaction of the Courl ro br- acquainted rritlr tlrc llcts of'the case- and shall conrain in a tabular lorrn thc lbllorving paniculars- nan)cl) - (a) lhe nurnber ol-the suiti (b) the nanres ol the parties: (c) the datc ot rhe decree; (d) whether an\ appcal has bcen prefcrlcd from thc decree; (e) whcther any. and (if any) what, pa) nlent or other adjustment of the matter in controvcrsy has been made betu ecn thc partics subsequentlv to the decree; (0 whether anv. and (if any) rvhal. prcvious applications have been made for the execution ol'thc decrcc, rhc datcs ol such applications and their results; (g) the amounl with interest (il anylduc Lrpon tllc decree. or other relief granted thereby. together with parliculars of any cross-dccree, whether passed belbre or aftcr the datc of thc ticcrce sought (o be executcd. (h) thc an:ount of thc costs (il'an\'; arrirrdcd: (i) the narne of the person against whom execution of the decree is sought; (j) the mode in which the assistance ol'the Courl is required whether- (D by the delivery ofany property specifically decreed; (iD by the attachment, or b)' the attachmcut and sale, or by thc sale without attachmcnt, oIany propertyi (iii) by the arrest and detenrion in prison ofany person; (iv) by the appoinlmcnl ofa receiver; (v) otherwise. as the naturc of the relief granted may requ ire. Ordcr XXI Rule 48 of CPC Attachment of salary or allowances of scrvant of the Government or railwal' r:ompany or local authority., I I (l) Wherc the property ro bc atta('hed is thc salary or allowances oi a servant ofthe Govemment or ofa scrvant ola railway conrpany or local authority or 1.:..^11t of a corporation engagctl in o,,y ,.rd. or industry which is esrabtished by a Cenl.rat. I,rovincia-i J, Storc ecl corrpany ; C"r;;; "; 1 as defined in sectiott 6 I 7 ol the Companics Act, I 956 ( I oi I956)l the Court, rvhether the.judgmcnt-dcbtor or thc disbursing officer is or is not within the Iocal linrits of thc Court's .iurisdiction. ntay order lhat the amount shall, subject 1o the provisions tlf section 60, be withheld from such salary or allowances either in onc palnlcnt or by monthly instalments as the Court may direct; and upon notice of thc order to such officer as the appropriate Govemment may by notification in the Official Gazctte appoint in this behall- (a) whcre such salary or allowances are to be disbursed within the local limits to which this Code lor thc timc being extends, the officer or other person whose duty it is to disburse the sarne shall withhold and remit to the Court the amount due undcr the order, or the monthly instalments, as the c€se may be; (b) where such salarl, or allowances are to be disbursed beyond the said limits, the officer or othcr person within those limits whose duty it is to instruct the disbursing authority regarding the amount of the salary or allowances to be dishursed shall remit to the Court the amount due under the order, or the monthly instalments, as the case may be, and shall direct the disbursing authority to rcduce the aggregate of the amounts from time to time, to be disbursed by the aggregate of lhe amou0ts from time to time remitted to thc Court. (2) Where the attachable proportion ol such salary or allowances is already being withheld and remitted to a Court in pursuance of a previous and unsatisfied order ol attachment, the officer appointed by the appropriate Govemment in this behalf shall forthwith return the subsequent order to the Court issuing it with a full statement of all the particulars of the existing attachment- (3) Every order madc under this rule, unless it i-s retumed in accordance with the provisions of sub-rule (2) shall, without further notice or other process, bind the appropriate Govemment or the railway company or local authority or corporation of Covernment companyr as the case may be, while the judgment-debtor is within the local limits to which this Code for the time being extcnds and while he is beyond those limits, il he is in receipt of any salary or allowances payable out of the Consolidated Fund of India or the Consolidated Fund ol the State or the funds of a railway company or local authority or corporation or Covcrnment company in India; and the appropriate Government or the railway comp:rny or local authority or corporalion or Govcmment company, as the case may be, shall be liable lor any sum paid in contravention oIthis rulc. IExplanation.-ln this rulc, "appropriate Govemment" means,- \ s (i) As rcspccts anv pclsou in thc scn icc of tlte Ccutral Co\,cnrmclrt. or any scrvant ol-a railrrrrr ldrrrinistration or ol il cantofinlclt autlrorit\ or of the port authority ola nrajor port. or arly scr|ant ofa corporation cngaged in any trade or industrl utich is cstablishctl hy a Ccntral Acl, or any servant of a Govemment company in lvhich any part of thc share capital is hcld by the Central Govemment or by ntorc than orte State Govcrnments or panly by the Central Govemrncnt and partly hy one or more Statc Covernments, the Central Government; (ii) As respects an)' other sen'anl ol the Covernmcnt, or a servant of any other local or olher authority, or any servant of a cdrporation engaged in any trade or industry which is established by a Provincial or State act, or a servant ofany other Government company. the State Govemment.l 48A, Attachment of salary or allowlnces of private employces.- (l) Where the prot)erty to be attached is thc salary ot' allorvances of an employee other than an employec to uhonr rllle 48 applies, the Coun. \'!'here the disbLrrsing officc. of lhc employcc is within thc local limits of the Court's jurisdiction, may order than the amount shall. suhiect to the provision of section 60, be withheld from such salaly or allowances cilher rn one paymcnt or by monthly instahnents as the Conrt may direct: and upon notice of the order to such disbursing offtcer. 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 Court in pursuancc ol a previous and unsatisfied order of attachment. the disbursing officer shall lorthwith relurn the subsequent ordel to. the Court issuing it with a full statement oi all the particulars of the exiSting attachment. (3) Every order madc under this rule, unless it is returned in accordance with the provisions of sub-rule (2). shalt, without further notice or other process, hipd the employu while the judgmcnrdebtors, is within the local limits to which this Code for the time being cxtends and while he is bcyond those- limits, if he is in receipt of salary or allowances payable out ol'the funds of an employer in any part of India, and thc employer shall be liable for any sum paid in c()ntravention of this rule.l

9. 'Ihe aforesaid relevant provisions would reveal that for realization of the arnount covered under the arbitration award, the lst respondenr has to file an applicatiorr under Seclion 36 ol the Act and 9 Order XXI Rulc I I(2) of CPC. Accor.dingly, l.t respondenr had filed the aloresaid Execur.ion Petirion vide E.p.No.29 of 202t. There is no relerence with regard to mode/proportion of the amount to realize from the J.Drs. under Order XXI Rule 4g of CpC.

10. It is also relevanr 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:- eq ually. of rh Contract Ac t8'72- ia ble c Where two or more persons are co_sureties for the same debt or duty, either jointly or severally, and whcthcr under the ,urn" o, aiit.rni lontracts, urd whether with or withou( the knowledge ol each other, the co_sureties, in the absence of any conlract to lhc contrary, are liable, as between themselves, to pay each an equal share of the rvhole debt, or of that part of ii *t,i"h ,".uin. unpaid by rhe principal debtor. I l. Therefore there is no consideration of the aloresaid aspects by the Court below in the irnpugned salary attachment order dated

24.08.2022. .

12. As discussed supra, lr,respondent cannot recover double the awarded amount lrom the petitionerVJ.Drs. and it is entitled lor only award amount i.e. fu.4, 10,25gl- from the J.Drs. together.

13. It is relevant to note that the leamed counsel appearing for 1,, respondent fairly admitted that l.t respondent is entitled for only an \ I antounr t.ll' Rs.4,10,258/- lionr the petitionersiJ. Drs. as per the aforesaid award dated 06.01.2021 in ARIl.No.l80i2020. The impugned order dated29.08.2022 in E.P.No.29 ol202l in ARB No. 180 of 2020 passed by learned V additional Districr Judge, at Miryalaguda is liable to be set aside.

14. In view of the aforesaid discussion, both the C]ivil Revision Petitions are allowed. The inrpugned order dated 24.08.2022 in E.P.No.29 of 2021 in ARB No.l80 of 2020 passed by learned V Additionat District Judge, at Miryalaguda is set aside and the matter is remanded back to the leamed V Additional District Judgc, Miryalagda with a direction to consider thc aloresaid aspects and pass orders atiesh. Liberty is also granted to [" respondent to seek recovery of the amount arvarded vide award dated 06.01 .202 I in ARB.No. I 80 of 2020 proportionately frorn the petitioners herein/ J.Drs.2 and 3. Consequently, miscellaneous Petitions, if any, pending, shall also stand closed. Sd/. K. VENKAIAH ASSISTANT REGISTRAR /ITRUE COPY// ta _-=*- - St:CTION OFFICER One Fair Copy to the Hon'ble Sri Justice K. LAKSHMAN (For His Lordships Kind perusal) To,

1. The V Additionat District Coud at Miryalaguda, Nalgonda District 2. One CC to SRI NAGESHWAR RAo PUJARI, Advocate [oPUC] I I I I I I I