Back
SUREPALLI NANDA
Gunda Sathaiah – Appellant
Versus
Karnakanti Narsimha Chary – Respondent
ORDER :
(Surepalli Nanda, J.)
Heard Mr Arunkumar Doddla, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner and Mr P.Ajith Varma, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents.
2. This civil revision petition is filed challenging the propriety and legality of the order dated 23-08-2023 in I.A.No.703/2023 in O.S.No 141 of 2020, whereby the Court of Principal Junior Civil Judge, Mancherial dismissed the petition filed under Order 38 Rule 5 of C.P.C. filed by the petitioner/plaintiff.
3. For the sake of convenience, the parties herein are referred to as they are arrayed in the suit before the lower Court.
4. The plaintiff filed the suit against the defendants for recovery of Rs.12,32,000/- on the strength of promissory note dated 15-06-2018 for Rs.8 lakhs allegedly executed by the defendant.
5. The defendant filed written statement denying the suit claim of the plaintiff contending that he neither borrowed the alleged debt nor executed the suit promissory note.
6. Subsequent to the filing of the suit, the plaintiff filed I.A.No.703 of 2023 under Order 38 Rule 5 CPC against the defendant, the officials of Singareni Colleries Company Limited at Srirampur and the Branch Manager of U
Retiral benefits are protected from attachment under Section 60(1) CPC, as clarified by the Supreme Court.
Retirement benefits, including commuted pension, are protected from attachment under Section 60(g) of C.P.C., while earned leave encashment is not.
Satisfaction of the Court is a pre-requisite for grant of conditional attachment under Order XXXVIII, Rule 5 of CPC. Failure to comply with the requirements of Order XXXVIII, Rule 5 of CPC renders th....
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
