ORDER:

This Civil Revision Petition, under Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (Code) is preferred by the petitioner/Garnishee against the order, dated 11.07.2017, of the learned III Additional District Judge, Fast Track Court, Anantapur, passed in E.P.No.231 of

2016 in O.S.No.23 of 2016.

2. Heard Sri Ineni Venkata Prasad, learned counsel for the revision petitioner and Sri N. Aswartha Narayana, learned counsel for the 1st respondent/Decree Holder. The 2nd respondent is shown to be not a necessary party to this revision petition.

3. The order, dated 11.07.2017, which is impugned in this revision, reads as under:

“Whereas the above named Decree Holder filed E.P to attach the public shares of judgment debtor which are in Kranthi Special Hospital Pvt. Ltd. (DIN No.0255332) to an extent of Rs.10,00,000/- (Rupees Ten lakhs only) and the attachment warrant also served (sic ’on’) on you on

28-10-2016.

Therefore, you are hereby directed to send the amount of Rs.10,00,000/- to this Court on or before

25-07-2017.

Further you are hereby directed to appear (sic ‘before’) the court and submit your explanation for not sending the amount to the court in spite of repeated directions of the Court.”

4. In the grounds of revision, the revision petitioner urged as under:

The Execution Court failed to see whether the alleged shares of JDr are with the revision petitioner or not and issued warrant against the revision petitioner who is in no way connected to those shares. Ordering attachment of the shares or issuing show-cause notice alleging him as the garnishee are incorrect and illegal. The revision petitioner submitted his explanation to the show cause notice dated

11.07.2017 informing the facts.

“(i) Kranthi Super Specialty Hospital Pvt. Ltd., is a private company and the shares available in the company are private shares and the shares belonging to JDr are not public shares;

(ii) The DIN (Director Identification Number) 025532 does not relate to any one of the Directors of the company;

(iii) There is a clear restriction for transfer of shares under Section 2(68)(i) of the Companies Act and therefore, it is not possible to release the shares or realize their value for complying with the orders impugned;

(iv) The name of Kranthi Super Specialty Hospital Pvt. Ltd., has been struck off from the Register of Companies under Section 248(1) of the Companies Act, vide notice dated 30.03.2017 by the Registrar of Companies and the notice was served on the company and all its Directors. As the company was dissolved under Section 248(5) of the Companies Act, there is a bar under Section 250 of the Act for transacting any business or activity except for which is provided and since then, the company is not in a position to transact any business, except for the payment/discharge of its liabilities/obligations as it ceased to operate as a company and its certification of incorporation has been cancelled unless the National Company Law Tribunal revives the company, no activity etc can be done and any violation is punishable;

(v) The decreed loan has been secured by the JDr in his personal capacity and as it does not belong to the company, the company is not personally liable and even the exception provided under Section 250 of the Companies Act cannot be enforced against the revision petitioner. The revision petitioner company including all its Directors have respect for orders of Court;

(vi) The proceedings against the petitioner/Garnishee are not sustainable as neither the company nor its Directors are parties to the suit or the execution petition and as the loan covered by the decree is a private loan.

(vii) Impugned notice was issued without affidavit of the DHr.

(In other words, based on the affidavit of the counsel for the DHr)”

5. During the course of arguments, the main contention of the revision petitioner is that he is in no way connected to the affairs of the company and he is not a garnishee and that therefore, he is not personally liable for the warrant b