C. Praveen Kumar, J.

The present Civil Revision Petition is filed under section 115 of C.P.C., challenging the order dated 23.12.2016 passed in E.P.No.178 of 2014 in O.S.No.476 of 2012 on the file of the Additional Senior Civil Judge, Tirupati, wherein and whereunder the trial Court directed the T.T.D., Tirumala to deposit an amount of Rs. 1,88,250/- into Court within one month from the date of the order and TTD shall pay interest @ 12% p.a. on the prohibitory order amount of Rs. 1,97,899/- from the date of filing of E.P.No.178 of 2014 till the date of deposit the amount into Court.

2. The facts in issue are as under:

The first respondent herein filed O.S. No.476 of 2012 on the file of the Additional Senior Civil Judge, Tirupathi, for recovery of the amount from the deceased C. Eswaramma. The said suit was decreed on 21.04.2014. Pending the said suit, I.A. No.912 of 2012 came to be filed for attachment of an amount of Rs. 3.00 lakhs, which was allowed and a copy of the same served on the garnishee ie. Deputy Executive Officer, Pay & Accounts-I, TTD, Tirupati, on 15.09.2012. After the decree, the first respondent/decree holder filed E.P. No.178 of 2014 to send the leave salary of the deceased-Eswaramma from the garnishee, which was already attached on 15.09.2012 and made absolute later.

The averments in the affidavit filed in support of the E.P. would show that in spite of serving the prohibitory order on the garnishee, the leave salary amount of the deceased Eswaramma was adjusted towards the dues of TTD and the balance amount of Rs. 9,649/- was paid to the son of the deceased. Since the garnishee violated the prohibitory orders passed by the Court and adjusted the death benefits of the deceased-Eswaramma, the decree holder filed the present E.P.

3. A counter came to be filed by the garnishee stating that the verification of the records would show that there were two attachment orders, one in I.A. No.912 of 2012 in O.S. No.476 of 2012 on the file of the Additional Senior Civil Judge, Tirupati, for attachment of Rs. 3,00,000/- and another in O.E.P. No.227 of 2012 in O.S. No.587 of 2000 on the file of the Principal Junior Civil Judge, Tirupati, for attachment of Rs. 74,157/-.

Subsequently, O.E.P. No.227 of 2012 was terminated. It is stated that the order passed in I.A. No.912 of 2012 was not brought to the notice of the higher authorities. Since the said order was not noticed due to oversight, orders were obtained from Chief Executive Officer, Tirupati, for recovery of excess pension of Rs. 97,350/- and Employees Bank dues for Rs. 90,900/-. The said amount of Rs. 97,350/- was recovered for the encashment of earned leave of deceased and the balance amount of Rs. 9,649/- was paid to the son of the deceased. It is stated that the garnishee was under a bonafide impression that the attachment orders of the Court has to be given effect from the payable amounts to the judgment debtors, after adjusting the amount due to T.T.D. The other death-cum-terminal benefits were already paid to the family of the deceased. It is admitted in the counter that the orders passed on 26.09.2015 to send the attachment amount of Rs. 3.00 lakhs (encashment of earned leave) was received by the garnishee on 09.10.2015. Immediately thereafter, a letter was addressed to the son of the deceased to pay back of Rs. 9,469/- which was repaid in the month of April, 2016. It is said that the garnishee never disobeyed the orders of the trial Court and further stated that the garnishee was under a bonafide impression that the attachment orders of the Court has to be given effect from the amounts payable to the judgment debtors after adjusting the due to T.T.D. Having regard to the above, it is said that there was no wilfil negligence on the part of the garnishee.

4. After considering the rival contentions, the trial Court allowed the E.P. directing the T.T.D. Tirumala to deposit Rs. 1,88,250/- in to the Court within a month from the date of the order and the T.T.D. was