The decree holder can recover the decretal amount from any judgment debtor, jointly or severally, as per Section 128 of the Indian Contract Act, and the execution petition was maintainable before the District Judge.

ORDER :

Kunuru Lakshman, J.

1. Heard Mr. P. Venkanna, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. N. Srikanth Goud, learned counsel for respondent No. 1. It is mentioned in the cause title that respondent No. 2 is not necessary to the present revision.

2. This revision is filed under Section - 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (hereinafter referred to as 'CPC'), challenging the attachment order dated 21.03.2024 in ARB E.P. No. 410 of 2019 in ARB Case No. 600 of 2012 passed by learned II Additional District Judge at Karimnagar.

3. Respondent No. 1 filed an Arbitration Application vide ARB Case No. 600 of 2012 against the petitioner and respondent No. 2 herein. The Arbitrator passed an Award dated 27.04.2013 in ARB Case No. 600 of 2012 holding that the petitioner and respondent No. 2 herein are due and liable to pay an amount of Rs. 1,50,201/- along with interest @ 18% per annum thereon. The said amount is not paid. Therefore, respondent No. 1 herein has filed an execution petition under Section - 36 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (for short 'Act, 1996') read with Order - XXI, Rule - 11 (2) of the CPC, vide E.P. No. 410 of 2019 in ARB Case No. 600 of 2012 against the petitioner herein - Judgment Debtor No. 2 alone, to recovery an amount of Rs. 3,36,889/-. Vide order dated 21.03.2024, learned II Additional District Judge, Karimnagar, issued order of attachment in Form No. 19 directing the Disbursing Officer of the petitioner to withhold an amount of Rs. 3,36,889/- from the salary of the petitioner and remit the same to the said Court. Challenging the said order, the petitioner herein filed the present revision on the following grounds:

i. Execution Petition is filed for realization of Rs. 3,36,889/-, therefore, it has to be filed before the Junior Civil Judge, Karimnagar, which has pecuniary jurisdiction and not the District Judge. Therefore, learned II Additional District Judge, Karimnagar has no power to entertain the E.P. and pass order of attachment;

ii. The impugned order of attachment was issued without following the procedure laid down under Order - XXI, Rule - 48 of the CPC;

iii. Respondent No. 1 - Decree Holder cannot recovery entire decretal amount from the salary of the petitioner and it has to recovery proportionately from the petitioner and respondent No. 2 herein;

iv. The Executing Court failed to consider compliance of Section - 31 (5) of the Act, 1996; and

v. Without giving any opportunity, the Executing Court passed the impugned order.

4. On the other hand, learned counsel for respondent No. 1 would contend that as per the law, respondent No. 1 being the decree- holder can recover decretal amount either from the petitioner alone or from the judgment debtors proportionately. Therefore, respondent No. 1 has filed the above E.P. to realize the decretal amount from the petitioner - judgment debtor No. 2, and on consideration of the same only, learned Executing Court issued the order of attachment and there is no error in it.

5. In the light of the aforesaid rival contentions, it is apposite to extract Section - 2 (1) (e) of the Act, 1996 and the same is as under:

"2 (1) (e) Court" means-

(i) in the case of an arbitration other than international commercial arbitration, the principal Civil Court of original jurisdiction in a district, and includes the High Court in exercise of its ordinary original civil jurisdiction, having jurisdiction to decide the questions forming the subject-matter of the arbitration if the same had been the subject matter of a suit, but does not include any Civil Court of a grade inferior to such principal Civil Court, or any Court of Small Causes."

6. In Potlabathuni Srikanth v. Shriram City Union Finance Limited, 2016 (2) ALD 10 (DB), a Division Bench of High Court for the States of Telangana and Andhra Pradesh at Hyderabad held that OP to be filed in District Court only and Court of Principal District Judge includes Additional District Judge.

7. Perusal of record would reveal that