2017 Supreme(AP) 431
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT HYDERABAD FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AND THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH
A. RAJASHEKER REDDY, J.
THE KERALA STATE CIVIL SUPPLIES CORPORATION, REP. BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR - PETITIONER
Versus
DHANALAKSHMI TRADERS, GRAND MERCHANTS AND COMMISSION AGENTS, COACHIN AND ANOTHER - RESPONDENTS
CRP. NO. 668 OF 2010
Decided On : 10-08-2017
For the Petitioner: Sri P. Vijaya Kiran
For the Respondents: Smt. Chandana Madala
Headnote:
Civil Procedure Code, 1908 – Section 39(1)(a) - Suit for recovery of amounts – Decree – Execution proceedings – Judgment-debtor is a firm, having business transactions with the petitioner herein, the Kerala State Civil Supplies Corporation. The said Corporation is due certain amount of Rs.14,33,577/- to the judgment-debtor – 2nd respondent, obtained decree, filed the present E.P. to send for the amounts from the garnishee petitioner. The trial court by order and decree allowed the said petition. Aggrieved by the same, the garnishee Corporation, filed the present revision – Held, judgment-debtor is residing at Cochin and is having its business establishment at Cochin. The garnishee, the petitioner herein, who is due amounts to the judgment-debtor, is also having its office at Cochin. Therefore, under Section 39(1)(a) of CPC., the present executing court, on the application of the decree-holder, has to transfer the decree to the court of competent court having jurisdiction, where the judgment-debtors resides, for execution of such decree. The petitioner herein, who is the garnishee can be termed as any person occurring in sub section 4 of Section 39, is also having its office at Cochin. Therefore in view of bar under sub section 4 of Section 39, the trial court cannot proceed against the garnishee at the court at Guntur, for the purpose of execution of the decree - present execution petition filed by the decree-holder before the court below, which passed the decree, is not maintainable and the said decree has to be transferred, as per the said provision, to the court of competent jurisdiction for the purpose of execution of such decree. Without considering the objections raised by the petitioner in this regard, the court below erroneously allowed the execution petition by passing the impugned order and the same is liable to be dismissed - Revision petition is allowed.
The 2nd respondent herein filed suit in O.S.No.32/2000 on the file of I Additional District Judge, Guntur, against the 1st respondent for recovery of amount. By judgment and decree dated 13.10.2008, the suit was decreed. The judgment-debtor is a firm, having business transactions with the petitioner herein, the Kerala State Civil Supplies Corporation. The said Corporation is due certain amount of Rs.14,33,577/- to the judgment-debtor. Both the judgment- debtor and the petitioner herein, are having their offices at Cochin, Kerala State. As the 2nd respondent, obtained decree, filed the present E.P.No.111/2008 in O.S.No.32/2000 on the file of trial court, to send for the amounts from the garnishee petitioner. The trial court by order and decree dated 23.10.2009, allowed the said petition. Aggrieved by the same, the garnishee Corporation, filed the present revision.
2. From the averments made by the petitioner, it could be seen that against the 1st respondent judgment debtor, number of suits have been filed in different courts in Guntur District, Andhra Pradesh, for recovery of amounts. In all the suits, the respective courts, passed orders to attach the amount due to the judgment-debtor from the petitioner Corporation. The judgment-debtor is also due an amount of Rs.61,03,502-00 to Central Bank of India, M.G. Road, Ernakulam. The present judgment-debtor has executed an irrevocable power of attorney in favour of the said Bank to receive the amounts that are due to it from the parties in respect of which bills due to the judgment-debtor. Accordingly, the Bank filed O.A.No.434 of 2002 on the file of Debt Recovery Tribunal, Ernakulam for realization of the amount due to it, against the judgment-debtor and also made the present decree-holder and others, as parties. In these circumstances, the petitioner herein, filed inter-pleader suit in O.S.No.405/2004 on the file of Subordinate Judge, Ernakulam making the persons concerned, including the present decree holder, as parties. The petitioner deposited the amount of Rs.14,33,577/- to the credit of the suit in O.S.No.405/2004. While disposing of the said suit, the Subordinate Court at Ernakulam, directed the petitioner to withdraw the amount lying to the credit of the suit and to deposit the same to the credit of the suit in O.A.No.434/2002 on the file of Debts Recovery Tribunal, Ernakulam. By final order dated 14.3.2006, the Debts Recovery Tribunal in O.A.No.434/2002 directed the petitioner herein to deposit the amount of Rs.14,33,577/- subject to attachment or any other prohibitory order issued by any court. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner has deposited the amount as directed by the Debts Recovery Tribunal to the credit of O.A.No.434/2002.
3. In the above back ground, coming to the case on hand, as noted above, the 2nd respondent decree holder filed the present execution petition seeking to send for the amounts of the judgment-debtor, lying to the credit of the petitioner, who is the garnishee. By the impugned order, the trial court found that since the order of the Debts Recovery Tribunal directing the garnishee to deposit the amount, is subject to attachment or any other prohibitory orders issued by any court and that since there is already attachment order, the garnishee is not justified in depositing the amount to the credit of the suit before the Tribunal. With these observations, the trial court allowed the E.P. and ordered for sending of the amounts by the garnishee due to the judgment- debtor. Assailing the same, the garnishee Corporation filed the present revision.
4. This court on 19.02.2010 while ordering notice before admission, granted interim stay.
5. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the judgment- debtor and the garnishee, who is the present revision petitioner, are having their business establishments at Cochin, in Kerala State. As per Section 39 (1)(a) of CPC, since the judgment debtor is not residing within the j