( 1 ) THIS revision petition is preferred against the order of the I Additional district Judge, Ranga Reddy District, dated 29. 3. 2003 in E. A. No. 12 of 2001 in E. P. No. 29 of 2001 in O. S. No. 201 of 2000. The revision petitioner is the decree-holder and the Respondents 1 to 3 are the judgment debtors and Respondents No. 4 to 7 are the garnishees in E. P. No. 29 of 2001.

( 2 ) THE revision petitioner filed O. S. No. 201 of 2000 for recovery of money against the first respondent represented by respondents No. 2 and 3. After appearance of the respondents a compromise decree was passed on 24. 4. 2001 through Lok Adalat and an Award under Section 21 of the legal Services Authority Act, 1987 was passed directing to pay the amount due to the revision petitioner in 10 equal installments. Under the compromise decree the decree holder undertook to withdraw the complaints lodged in various Courts and the first judgment-debtor undertook to abide by the compromise decree. The judgment-debtor failed to report compliance of the conditions under the compromise decree and they wriggled out from the compromise.

( 3 ) THE revision petitioner contends that the garnishees were indebted to the first Judgment Debtor and the judgment- debtors 2 and 3 are trying to recover the debt from the Garnishees with an intention to deprive the revision petitioner of its legitimate fruits of the decree. In such an event it will not be in a position to enjoy the fruits of the decree. It is further pleaded that the garnishees are about to disburse monies to judgment-debtors No. 2 and 3. If they succeed in their attempts, he would suffer great loss. Therefore, he prayed to direct the garnishees to withhold payment of rs. 30,02,996/ -.

( 4 ) IN the counter-affidavit the first respondent mentioned that it is a company with its registered office at New Delhi. It is not carrying on any business or work for gain within the jurisdiction of Ranga reddy Court. It is not having any movable or immovable properties within the jurisdiction of the said Court. The I Additional District judge, Ranga Reddy District has no territorial jurisdiction to execute the decree. Therefore, the Execution Petition as well as E. A. No. 12 of 2001 are liable to be dismissed on the ground of lack of territorial jurisdiction.

( 5 ) THE point for consideration is: whether the I Additional District Judge, ranga Reddy District has no territorial jurisdiction to issue direction to respondents Nos. 4 to 7 to withhold rs. 30,02,996/- through its order dated 29. 3. 2003. ? point:

( 6 ) IT is an undisputed fact that the decree holder filed O. S. No. 201 of 2000 on the file of I Additional District Judge s Court, ranga Reddy District in Andhra Pradesh. Subsequently, there was a compromise between the parties and the suit was decreed in terms of the compromise. Subsequently, the decree-holder filed E. P. No. 29 of 2001 for realisation of the amount with a request to order attachment of the money lying with the Respondents No. 4 to 7 in the capacity of garnishees. The respondents questioned the attachment on the ground that the additional District Judge s Court, Ranga reddy District has no territorial jurisdiction to order attachment of the money which is lying with the garnishee whose corporate office is situated at New Delhi and who has no branches or business transactions in ranga Reddy District.

( 7 ) THE learned Counsel for the decree-holder contended that in the light of the provisions of the Code of Civil Procedure and in the light of the judgments rendered by various Courts, the lower Court has jurisdiction to order attachment of the amount lying with the garnishee. In this regard, I wish to refer to the relevant provisions of Civil Procedure Code.

( 8 ) SECTION 136 (1) of CPC deals with the procedure regarding ordering of the attachment of the property situated outside the district and it reads as follows:"where an application is made that any person shall be arrested or that