JUDGMENT :

M. SEETHARAMA MURTI, J.

1. This civil revision petition, under Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 by the unsuccessful petitioner-3rd JDr is directed against the order, dated 16.4.2018, of the learned X Additional District Judge, Narsapur of West Godavari District, passed in EP No. 692 of 2017 in ARC No. 364 of 2009.

2. We have heard the submissions of Sri Kumara Ratnam Tenneti, learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner-3rd JDr ['3rd JDr', for brevity] and of Sri Maheswara Rao Kunchem, learned Counsel appearing for the 1st respondent-DHr ['DHr', for short]. We have perused the material record.

3. The introductory facts, in brief, are as follows :--'The DHr having obtained an Award, filed the ARC aforementioned before the Court below for recovery of the amount due by attachment of the salary of the 3rd JDr, who is employed in Sri YNM College, Narsapur. The 3rd JDr having entered appearance filed a counter resisting the recovery proceedings. On merits and by the order impugned in this revision, the Court below over ruled the objections of the 3rd JDr and directed attachment of the salary of the 3rd JDr subject to provision of Section 60 of the Code and directed Rule 48 notice to be issued to the JDr. Aggrieved thereof, the 3rd JDr filed this revision.'

4. The case of the DHr is this:--'The Award passed by the Arbitrator has become final. The JDrs did not pay the amount due under the Award to the DHr. The 3rd JDr is a salaried employee. He is drawing a substantial monthly salary. He is also having movable and immovable properties besides gold ornaments. His salary disbursing officer is Secretary & Correspondent, Sri YNM College, Narsapur. Though the DHr made demands personally to discharge the debt, the 3rd JDr, who is having sufficient means and is capable of discharging the decree debt, willfully evaded to pay and postponed repayment. Hence, the EP is filed.'

5. The case of the 3rd JDr is this:--'Though this JDr is guarantor, the subject recovery proceedings are initiated against this JDr with ulterior intentions. The 1st JDr is also an employee and his wife is also one of the guarantors. Their earnings are sufficient to realize the amount due under the Award. The DHr filed another execution petition in EP No. 4 of 2015 against them for attachment of salary of immovable properties of the 2nd JDr. The said EP is also pending. Despite pendency of the said EP, the present EP is filed with ulterior motives, for attachment of the salary of this JDr. This JDr obtained a housing loan. Recoveries towards the said housing loan are being made from his salary. Some amounts are being deducted towards compulsory departmental deductions. He is having a big family including mother who is suffering from ill health. He is spending considerable amount on her medical needs and also on his son's education who is pursuing Intermediate course. He has got two daughters, who are also pursuing education. He is required to spend huge amounts on his children's education annually. The salary particulars of this JDr are not correctly shown by the DHr. Except the monthly salary of Rs. 20,000/-, this JDr is not having any other sources of income. After deductions, he is drawing a far lesser amount than actual salary. Hence, the EP may be dismissed.'

6. At the hearing, learned Counsel for the 3rd JDr contended as follows:--'Since an EP No. 4 of 2015 is already filed against JDrs. 1 & 2, who are wife and husband, and as the said EP for sale of immovable properties of the 2nd JDr is pending, the present EP is not maintainable. The JDrs. 1 & 2 are capable of discharging the decree debt as they are having sufficient means and sources of income. Yet, the present EP for attachment of the salary of this JDr is filed with ulterior motives and intentions. If the net salary of this JDr, which is a meagre amount, is attached, he suffers serious and irreparable loss, as his net salary is not even sufficient to maintain his family, educate his children