The attachment does not create any charge on the attached property, and the garnishee does not become a surety under Section 145 CPC by virtue of the prohibitory order issued under Order 21 Rule 46 CPC.

ORDER :

1. As the issue involved in all these civil revision petitions is one and the same, they are being taken up for hearing as well as disposed of by way of this Common Order.

2. Heard Mrs. V. Dyumani, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and Mr. V. Nitesh, learned counsel appearing for the respondents.

3. Since the facts in all the civil revision petitions are similar and identical, therefore CRP No. 780 of 2018 is taken as lead case, and the facts therein hereinafter will be referred to for convenience.

4. The facts of the case are that the first respondent herein filed suit in O.S No. 444 of 2012 against the petitioner herein before the Court of Senior Civil Judge, Proddatur based on a pronote and obtained decree on 17.04.2014. Later, the first respondent filed E.P. No. 81 of 2014 and got attached the surplus amount of Rs.59,93,997/- lying in the hands of garnishee i.e., the Branch Manager, Corporation Bank, Prodatur payable to the second respondent. Thereafter, vide order dated 20.02.2015, the said E.P. was allowed and attachment was made absolute by the Court below. Hence the impugned I.A. has been filed seeking to send for the attached E.P. amount from garnishee. However, the said I.A. was allowed by Court below vide order dated 04.10.2017 on the ground that since the garnishee disobeyed the attachment order passed by the Court below in the E.P and had not shown sufficient cause for not remitting the E.P. amount and hence directed to pay the attachment warrant amount in EP No. 81 of 2014 to the first respondent within two months with future interest at 6% p.a. failing which the first respondent is at liberty to proceed against the garnishee in accordance with law. Aggrieved by the same, the present civil revision petition came to be filed.

5. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the second respondent and his two brothers namely Gudamcherla Mahaboob Basha and Gudamcherla Answar Hussian are joint owners of the shop rooms at Proddatur. The second respondent borrowed loan from their bank for which his two brothers were stood as guarantors and kept their property (two shop rooms) with bank towards collateral security. Later they committed default of payment of loan amount and hence the loan account became NPA. Thereafter, the bank sold away two shop rooms in auction on 19.3.2014 for Rs.83,00,000/- and appropriated an amount of Rs.23,71,353/-towards the loan debt due by the respondents and closed the account. He further submits that the Court below failed to see that one G. Mahaboob Basha and G. Ansar Hussain filed suit in O.S. No. 58 of 2013 before the learned II Additional District Judge Court, Kadapa at Proddatur for partition on the property mortgaged to the petitioner bank and the said suit was filed against Gudamcherla Masthan Valli and Corporation Bank, Proddatur Branch. He further submits that the petitioner divided the balance sale proceeds i.e., Rs.59,28,646.99 ps. Into three shares and kept one share relating to the second respondent/J.Dr and remaining two shares amount was paid on 15.5.2014 to Gudamcherla Mahaboob Basha and Gudamcherla Ansar Hussain.

6. Learned counsel for the petitioner mainly submits that the petitioner has received the orders from Proddatur courts, as follows: