Point of Law : Provision in Order XXVII Rule 8-A of CPC the State need not be compelled to pre-deposit as a condition precedent to avail the remedy of appeal/application and, therefore, order of attachment was illegal.

ORDER :

P. Naveen Rao, J.

The facts on record disclose that the petitioner is a Partnership Firm involved in execution of Sub-Stations, fixing of electricity consumption meters etc. It appears, in the year, 2015 it was awarded contract to erect five 33/11 KV Sub-stations at various locations and other works concerning electricity supply by the Southern Power Distribution Company Limited. The petitioner and the first respondent entered into sub-contract on 22.04.2017 for execution of erection of 33/11 KV Sub-stations, construction of KV lines, 11 KV & LT Lines for distribution, transformers and extension of supply to BPL Households etc. According to first respondent, the entire work was executed as agreed upon by 20.03.2020 and raised bills and requested the petitioner several times to settle his bills. But, the petitioner dodged from complying with the agreement.

2. To resolve the dispute, the parties requested their elders to arbitrate on the dispute. As part of the settlement arrived at between the parties before the Arbitrators, the petitioner agreed to pay Rs. 2.65 crores and the first respondent agreed to confine his claim to said amount as full and final settlement. Accordingly, an award was passed on 15.09.2020.

3. In spite of settlement of dispute and agreement on amount payable to the first respondent, the amount was not settled. Hence, the first respondent filed E.P.No.213 of 2021 on the file of VII Additional District Judge, Warangal, for execution of the award.

4. In the said E.P., first respondent filed E.A.No.115 of 2021 under Order XXI Rule 46-A read with Section 151 of Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (CPC), to direct garnishees, respondents 2 to 5, to withhold the award amount of Rs.2,65,00,400/- by not disbursing the same to the petitioner. By order dated 30.06.2021, the Court below allowed the petition and directed the respondents 2 to 5 to withhold an amount of Rs.2,65,00,400/- and credit the amount to the account of the E.P. Aggrieved thereby, this revision is filed.

5. Heard Smt. Manjari S. Ganu, learned counsel appearing for Sri Sunil B. Ganu learned counsel for petitioner and Sri A. Sudarshan Reddy learned senior counsel appearing for Sri A. Prabhakar Rao, for respondent no.1, and Sri R. Vinod Reddy learned standing counsel for TS TRANSCO for respondents 2 to 5.

6.1. Learned counsel Smt. Manjari S Ganu contended that the Court below has no power to issue garnishee order and grossly erred in issuing garnishee order.

6.2. According to the learned counsel, the award is forged and fabricated and, therefore, not binding on the petitioner. She would submit that the petitioner has serious objection on the manner in which the award was passed. Therefore, the petitioner filed application to set aside the award on the ground of fraud. In an application seeking to enforce an award, the Execution Court is bound by the provisions of the CPC. As required by Section 47 of CPC, the Execution Court ought to have decided in the first instance validity of the award before seeking its enforcement. The Execution Court grossly erred in passing garnishee order without first deciding the objections filed, as required by Section 47 of CPC.

6.3. She would further submit that as the decree-holder and followers manhandled and threatened the petitioner on many occasions, petitioner filed private complaint before the Court and the same was referred to Subedari Police Station and registered as Crime No.359 of 2021. Petitioner also filed another complaint bearing Crime No.388 of 2020 in Hanamkonda Police Station. No action is taken on the complaints filed by him.

6.4. She would further submit that in fact, petitioner never went back on making payments, but what is claimed by the decree-holder is exorbitant and, therefore, petitioner has been asking to furnish true accounts and actual works executed by the decree-holder, whereas no such information is furnished.

6.5. She would further submit that if the garnishee order is implemented, it would be di