IMPORTANT POINT
The judgment emphasizes the importance of jurisdiction, compliance with natural justice principles, and the specific applicability of statutory rules in attachment proceedings.

ORDER :

1. Aggrieved by the order dated 02.09.2022 in I.A. No. 2 of 2022 in O.S. No. 424 of 2022 (hereinafter will be referred as ‘impugned order’) passed by the learned Principal Junior Civil Judge-cum-Judicial Magistrate of First Class at Kothagudem (hereinafter will be referred as ‘trial Court’) the respondents/defendants filed the present Civil Revision Petition to set aside the impugned order.

2. For the sake of convenience, hereinafter, the parties will be referred as per their array before the trial Court.

3. The brief facts of the case as can be seen from the record available before the Court are that the petitioner/plaintiff filed O.S. No. 424 of 2022 against the respondent Nos. 1 to 3/defendant Nos. 1 to 3 for recovery of money of Rs. 4,86,000/- and along with the suit the petitioner/plaintiff also filed I.A. No. 2 of 2022 under order XXXVIII Rule 5 of the Code of Civil Procedure for attachment of petition schedule amounts before judgment. The brief averments of the affidavit filed in support of the petition in I.A. No. 2 of 2022 are as under:

(a) The respondent No. 1/defendant No. 1 is the brother of respondent Nos. 2 and 3/defedantn Nos. 2 and 3. the mother of respondents/defendants by name D. Anasuya had close acquaintance with the petitioner/plaintiff and out of such acquaintance, she borrowed an amount of Rs. 3,00,000/- from the petitioner/plaintiff on 25.01.2020 for her family necessities and executed a pronote in favour of the petitioner/plaintiff on the same day at his house to the effect of promising him to repay the same together with agreed interest @ 24% either to him or to his order on demand.

(b) Thereafter, despite repeated demands made by the petitioner/plaintiff, Smt. D. Anasuya did not repay the amount and avoiding the payment on one pretext or the other. Finally on 09.03.2022 Smt. D. Anasuya died intestate leaving the respondents/defendants as her legal heirs and successors to succeed her entire properties and assents and thereby the respondents are enjoying the properties of late D. Anasuya. Smt. D.Anasuya died without discharging the pronote amount to the petitioner/plaintiff.

(c) After the death of Smt. D. Anasuya the petitioner/plaintiff made several oral demands to the respondents/defendant to pay the amount but the respondents put deaf ear and avoiding the payment. The petitioner/plaintiff, vexed with the attitude of the respondents/defendant, approached the respondents/ defendants on 04.08.2022 and demanded for repayment but there was no response. Hence, the petitioner/plaintiff filed the suit for recovery of the amount.

(d) The original borrower D. Anasuya worked as J.P.A. vide I.D. No. 1051643 in V. Stage KTPS Paloncha but unfortunately she died on 09.03.2022 while in service leaving the respondents as her legal heirs to succeed to her estate. The respondents submitted application before the employer of D. Anasuya to receive death benefits of late D. Anasuya and hurried attempts to receive the death benefits and leave the jurisdiction of the court without paying promissory note amount to the petitioner/plaintiff. If the respondents succeed in their attempts, the petitioner may not realize the suit amount in future. Moreover, the decree was sought against the estate of the deceased lying in the hands of respondents.

4. Heard both sides and perused the record including the grounds of revision.

5. The first and foremost contention of the learned counsel for the revision petitioners/respondents/defendants is that the trial Court did not consider that the petitioner is residing in agency area and the warrant of attachment order and the trial Court without jurisdiction and without having any power issued the impugned order, which is bad in law. It is further contended that the Execution Court failed to follow the Section 136 of the Code of Civil Procedure, which lays down the procedure in case the property is situated outside the territorial jurisdiction of the Court and that the mode prescribed is that