J. Nisha Banu, J.

This Civil Revision Petition has been filed against the order dated 11.12.2006 passed in E.P.No. 577 of 2005 in O.S. No. 1299 of 1994 on the file of the Additional District Munsif of Madurai Town.

2. The case of the petitioner is that an execution petition was filed against the garnishee for payment of money due by the judgment debtor, namely, the first respondent herein and the execution Court has dismissed the same. Aggrieved over the same, the petitioner is before this Court.

3. The first respondent/judgment debtor was the employee of the official respondents 2 and 3 herein. The petitioner contends that the executing Court has failed to see that the second respondent was the disbursing authorities within the meaning of Clauses (a) and (b) of Sub Rule 1 of Rule 48 Order 21 of Code of Civil Procedure and the second respondent ought to have withheld the portion of the salary as provided under Section 60 of Code of Civil Procedure and on his failure to remit the amount, the second respondent is bound and liable to pay the decree amount to the petitioner. The petitioner further contends that when prohibitory order under Section 46 of Civil Procedure Code was served upon the respondents 2 and 3, they have not raised any objection and if really, the second respondent was not the disbursing authority, he ought to have raised an objection in the earlier Execution Petition in E.P.No.498 of 1995 made on 11.07.1995 and the same had been overlooked by the Executing Court. Once such objection has not been raised then as provided under Order 21, Rule 46Bof the code of Civil Procedure Code, he is deemed to be the disbursing authority. The official respondents by not appearing before the Court has remained silent and allowed the Executing Court to close the execution petition on 20.08.1997 and now, he cannot turn around to say that as if he was not the disbursing authority, when the execution petition had been filed against them for paying the amount due to the petitioner. It is also the duty of the respondent to bring the further events before the Court below which had taken place, which they have failed to do so.

4. It is further stated by the petitioner that if the first petitioner was suspended and he is not in service, it is the duty of the respondents to bring the same to knowledge of the Court and findings of the learned Judge that the petitioner ought to have filed documentary evidence to show that the first respondent continue to be an employee at the time when the order of prohibition was passed is perverse. The prohibitory order was served on 20.06.1996 itself and though according to the respondents, the petitioner's left the service on 09.11.2006 on the date of serving prohibitory order, the petitioner was in service. The silence of the second and the third respondents in not utilising the opportunity given to them and not filing any objections before the Court below in the earlier execution proceedings has to be taken note of by this Court and now they cannot take a stand that they are not disbursing authority and as per the provision of the Act, the respondents 2 and 3, are liable to pay the amount, as that of the judgment debtor and therefore, the Executing Court ought to have allowed the execution petition proceedings and therefore, sought for interference of this Court.

5. The second and the third respondents in their counter in E.P.No.577 of 2005 has stated that the first respondent had been compulsorily retired from service on 09.11.1996 since he was charge sheeted in the departmental enquiry and the punishment of compulsory retirement was imposed on him and prior to this, he had been placed under suspension and hence, the order of E.P. No. 498 of 1995 could not be complied with. Further, the salary disbursing authority/garnishee of the judgment debtor is only the Senior Manager of Account Section, Madurai and not the Deputy General Manager at Circle Office in Madurai and in the provision, it is stated