ORDER :

Heard Sri Nageshwar Rao Pujari, learned counsel for the petitioners in both the revisions and Sri N.Srikanth Goud, learned counsel appearing for respondent No.1. Perused the record.

2. Questioning the order dated 24.08.2022 in E.P.No.29 of 2021 in ARB No.180 of 2020 passed by learned V Additional District Judge, at Miryalaguda, the petitioners herein in both the revisions/J.Drs. 2 and 3 therein have filed the aforesaid revisions.

Facts of the case:-

3. On the application filed by 1st respondent, an award dated 06.01.2021 passed in arbitration application vide ARB No.180/2020 under Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (for short, the Act’), against the petitioners and Smt.Prathipati Shirisha (J.Dr.No.1). They have not filed any application under Section 34 of the Act challenging the said award and it attained finality. Therefore, 1st respondent/Decreeholder had filed an Execution Petition vide E.P.No.29 of 2021 under Section 36 of the Act seeking execution of the said award. Vide order dated 24.08.2022, learned V Additional District Judge at Miryalaguda has passed an order of attachment of salary of both the petitioners to an extent of Rs.4,10,258/- due to the Decreeholder under the Degree. The learned Judge also required the Drawing Officer i.e. Head Master in ZPHS School at Lingagiri Village, Huzurnagar Mandal, Suryapet District, to withhold the said sum from the salary of the petitioners in 24 monthly instalments and to remit the same to the said Court. Challenging the said order, the petitioners have filed the present revisions.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioners in both the revisions would submit that the petitioners have not filed any application under Section 34 of the Act and however, the 1st respondent/Decreeholder cannot seek execution of the aforesaid award dated 06.01.2021 to recover decree amount of Rs.4,10,258/- each from both the petitioners. It amounts to double the decree amount. The said fact was not considered by the Court below while passing impugned order dated 24.08.2022. Even 1st respondent did not mention the said aspect while filing Execution Petition under Section 36 of the Act. With the said submissions, he sought to set aside both the orders.

5. Whereas, learned counsel appearing for 1st respondent would submit that 1st respondent had filed E.P.No.29 of 2021 under Section 36 of the Act in terms of Order XXI Rule 48 of CPC, wherein there is no provision to seek execution of the award by mentioning the amount proportionately. Therefore, 1st respondent had filed EP in terms of Order XXI rule 48 of CPC. Considering the said fact, the Court below had ordered attachment of salary. However, he fairly submits that necessary orders may be passed considering the provisions of the law to enable 1st respondent to recover the award amount from both the petitioners.

6. There is no dispute that on the application filed by 1st respondent vide ARB No.180/2020, order dated 06.01.2021 was passed by the Arbitrator awarding an amount of Rs.4,10,258/- along with the interest at the rate of 18% from 12.02.2020 to 16.09.2021 on the said amount from the petitioners and J.Dr.1.

7. No application under Section 34 of the Act was filed by the petitioners/J.Drs, challenging the said award and therefore, the said award attained finality. They have also not paid the aforesaid amount. Therefore, 1st respondent had filed Execution Petition vide E.P.No.29 of 2021 under Section 36 read with Order XXI Rule 11(2) of CPC before the V additional District Judge, Miryalaguda, for an amount of Rs.4,10,258/- seeking execution of the aforesaid award. Thus, vide impugned order, learned Judge, directed the Drawing Officer to withhold an amount of Rs.4,10,258/- each from both the petitioners/ J.Drs.2 and 3. If the said amount is recovered, it would be Rs.8,20,516/- which is impermissible. 1st respondent is entitled for only Rs.4,10,258/- i.e. award amount from the petitioners herein/J.Drs, together.

8. It is relevant to note that section 36 o