R. BAYAPU REDDY, J.

( 1 ) THIS revision is filed by the decree-holders in EP No. 373 of 1992 in OS No. 90 of 1986 on the file of the 1st Additional Subordinate Judge, Visakhapatnam, questioning the impugned orders dated 4-2-1993 passed in EA No. 1479 of 1992 in so far as they relate to the quantum of the amount for which execution was ordered.

( 2 ) THE revision-petitioners, who are the plaintiffs in OS No. 90 of 1986, filed the said suit for partition and separate possession of their share in the suit property against the respondents herein, and preliminary decree with costs was passed on 15-9-1992. The said preliminary decree had become final as it was not questioned by the defendants/ respondents. Subsequently, the plaintiffs, who are the decree-holders, filed EP No. 373 of 1992 for recovery of the suit costs awarded to them under the preliminary decree by seeking attachment and sale of the moveable property belonging to the defendants. The warrant of attachment was returned unexecuted on account of some obstruction caused by the judgment-debtors. Thereupon the decree-holders filed EA No. 1479 of 1992 for re-issue of the warrant of attachment to the Amin. At that stage, the defendants judgment-debtors appeared in Court and filed their counter opposing the application on various grounds including the ground that the advocate fee awarded under the decree is more than what is permitted under A. P. Advocate Fee Rules, 1990 and that the attachment cannot be ordered for realisation of such excessive amount shown in the decree.

( 3 ) THE learned Subordinate Judge rejected the contentions of the respondents on other grounds but upheld their contention regarding the quantum of advocate-fee awarded in the decree and directed re-issue of warrant of attachment only for an amount of Rs. 13,711. 00 which according to him is the proper advocate-fee, and not for the amount of Rs. 36,266. 00 which was shown in the decree towards advocate fee.

( 4 ) DURING the pendency of the revision petition, the first respondent died and respondents 4 to 11 were recorded and recognised as his LRs. Notices were served on all the respondents in this revision and they did not however choose to appear.

( 5 ) COUNSEL for the revision petitioner is therefore heard.

( 6 ) THE only point that arises for consideration in this revision is whether the lower Court, which is the execution Court, has erred in reducing the decree amount awarded towards advocate fee and whether there are valid reasons for interfering with such orders of the execution Court.

( 7 ) IT is now clear from the facts of this case that the preliminary decree for partition which was passed on 15-9-1992 has become final as it was not questioned. The preliminary decree for partition was passed with costs, and an amount of Rs. 36694. 00 was awarded towards costs which related to the advocate fee of Rs. 36,266. 00 for the plaintiffs. The decree-holders filed EP No. 373 of 1992 for realising the above said suit costs awarded to them by seeking attachment of moveable property belonging to the judgment-debtors. The objection raised by the respondents with regard to the suit costs incorporated in the decree was that under Rule 13 of the A. P. Advocates Fee Rules, 1990, the advocate fee can be awarded in a suit for partition only to a maximum of Rs. 10,000. 00 and in the present case the costs which comprised of only the advocate fee awarded by the lower Court in the preliminary decree was Rs. 36694. 00, that the trial Court had no jurisdiction to grant more than Rs. 10,000. 00towards advocate fee, that in granting advocate-fee at Rs. 36,266. 00 the Court acted without jurisdiction and as such the decree cannot be executed beyond the amount of Rs. 10,000. 00 permissible under Rule 13 of the A. P. Advocates Fee Rule, 1990. The executing Court accepted such contention of the respondents by relying upon the observations made in Subbanna v. Subbanna, AIR 1962 AP 500. But a perusal of the above said decision

Click Here to Read the rest of this document