O R D E R:

This Civil Revision Petition is directed under Section 115 of the Civil Procedure Code, 1908 (for brevity ‘CPC’) against the Order, dated 04.07.2016 in E.P.No.5 of 2007 in O.P.No.445 of 2002 on the file of the I Additional District Judge, Anantapuramu, where under the execution petition filed under Order XXI Rule 43, 64 and 66 of CPC against 2nd Judgment - Debtor, for attachment of movable properties for realization of the decree amount, was ‘Allowed’.

2. The decree-holder filed E.P.No.5 of 2007 under Order XXI Rule 43, 64 and 66 of CPC for attachment and sale of the E.P., schedule movable properties belonging to the judgment-debtor No.2 i.e., the revision-petitioner herein, for recovery of a sum of Rs.5,44,607/- as due under the decree in O.P.No.445 of 2002.

3. The revision-petitioner, who is the 2nd respondent/ Judgment-Debtor No.2, opposed the E.P. The contention of the revision-petitioner is that the entire amount due under the decree was deposited in the Tribunal. The contention of the decree-holder is that the judgment-debtor No.2 i.e., the revision-

petitioner deposited only a sum of Rs.4,03,342/- and therefore, the revision-petitioner is still liable to pay a sum of Rs.99,123/-. 4. The decree-holder was examined as P.W.1 in the E.P., proceedings. No evidence was adduced for the Insurance Company/revision-petitioner. During cross-examination of P.W.1, a suggestion was made that the disputed amount was deducted towards Income Tax Deductible at Source (for brevity ‘TDS’) payable on interest earned on the compensation amount payable to the decree-holder. P.W.1 in the re-examination deposed that he did not receive any information in writing from the Insurance Company regarding deduction of amount towards TDS payable on the interest earned on the compensation amount payable to the decree-holder.

5. The Trial Court held that the Insurance Company did not file any material establishing that the disputed amount was paid to the Income Tax Department towards TDS payable on interest and rejected the said contention of the Insurance Company. The Tribunal allowed the execution petition ordering attachment of the EP schedule movable properties belonging to the Insurance Company, as the Insurance Company is still liable to pay a sum of Rs.99,123/-.

6. The learned counsel for the revision-petitioner submitted that the Insurance Company is obligated to deduct income tax at source on the amount of interest payable to the claimant thereon accrued up to the date of payment or deposit as per rules and therefore, the Insurance Company deducted the disputed amount towards TDS on interest payable to the claimant.

7. The learned counsel for the decree-holder submitted that the Insurance Company did not furnish any information either to the decree-holder or to the Tribunal to enable the decree- holder either to avail the benefit of tax payable at source or to claim refund of the tax, as the case may be and therefore, in the absence of any information, the Insurance Company is liable to deposit the amount and therefore, the Trial Court did not commit any error in its Order while allowing the execution petition.

8. In the light of above contentions, the point for consideration is as under:

“Whether the Executing Court committed any irregularity in the Order, dated 04.07.2016 passed in E.P.No.5 of 2007 in O.P.No.445 of 2002?”

9. P O I N T:-

The Award amount as per the Order of this Court in M.A.C.M.A.Nos.1297 and 1977 of 2007 is Rs.3,85,000/-. This Court reduced the interest from 9% to 7.5% on the award amount. Therefore, the interest from the date of petition i.e., 18.12.2002 to till the date of Stay Order i.e.,18.10.2007 for a period of 58 months at the rate of 7.5% per annum comes to Rs.1,39,562/-. The total amount, including costs, due as on 18.10.2007 is Rs.5,27,719/-. The Insurance Company deposited a sum of Rs.25,000/- at the time of filing appeal and later deposited another sum of Rs.2,42,825/- as per Stay Order on 22.10.2007. The total am