APHC010402822024 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI [3333]

(Special Original Jurisdiction)

FRIDAY,THE TWENTY EIGHTH DAY OF NOVEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE V.SUJATHA CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO: 2115/2024 Between:

1. M KRISHNA, S/O. LATE ABBI NAIDU, HINDU, AGED ABOUT 62 YEARS, R/O. D.NO. 5-44, ESWARAMMA COLONY, H/O. KOTHAPALLE, MADANAPALLE MANDAL, ANNAMAYYA DISTRICT ANDHRA PRADESH.

...PETITIONER AND

1. T GOPALU GOPAL, S/o. Late T.Ramaiah,Hindu, aged about 66 years, R/o. Kurabalakota Village, Post and Mandal, Annamayya District, Andhra Pradesh.

...RESPONDENT Counsel for the Petitioner:

1. J U M V PRASAD Counsel for the Respondent:

1. S VARADARAJULU CHETTY The Court made the following ORDER:

The present Civil Revision Petition is preferred challenging the order dated 09.07.2024 passed in E.A.No.34 of 2021 in O.E.P.No.11 of 2017 in O.S.No.365 of 2012, on the file of the Court of the Principal Civil Judge (Senior Division ), Madanapalle.

2. The case of the petitioner / decree holder (D.Hr.) is that he filed E.A.No.34 of 2021 under Order XXI, Rule 46 C.P.C. seeking release of attached amount from the judgment debtor’s (J.Dr.) savings bank account. The Court below dismissed the petition observing that the bank account of the J.Dr. is of the nature of the pension and therefore, the same cannot be brought under attachment.

3. Aggrieved by the dismissal order, the petitioner/D.Hr. preferred this revision petition.

4. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the respondent.

5. The learned counsel for the revision petitioner submitted that the Court below not appreciated the legal position that the Ex.P.10 (bank statement of J.Dr. from 19.02.2019 to 31.01.2020) which was marked through PW.2 clearly establishes that apart from the retiral benefits, there are other transactions with huge amounts which are nothing to do with pension and that J.Dr. is having sufficient means to honour the decree and intentionally evading the same claiming to be living only on pension and the Court blow ought to have ordered for release of attached amount from the J.Dr’s savings bank account.

6. Order XXI, Rule 46, C.P.C. reads as follows:

“46. Attachment of debt, share and other property not in possession of Judgment-debtor.--(1)In the case of-

(a) a debt not secured by a negotiable instrument, (b) a share in the capital of a corporation, (c) other movable property not in the possession of the judgment- debtor, except property deposited in, or in the custody of, any Court, the attachment shall be made by a written order prohibiting,- (i) in the case of the debt, the credit or from recovering the debt and the debtor from making payment thereof until the further order of the Court; (ii) in the case of the share, the person in whose name the share may be standing from transferring the same or receiving any dividend thereon; (iii) in the case of the other movable property except as aforesaid, the person in possession of the same from giving it over to the judgment-debtor.

(2) A copy of such order shall be affixed on some conspicuous part of the court-house, and another copy shall be sent in the case of the debt, to the debtor, in the case of the share, to the proper officer of the corporation and, in the case of the other movable property (except as aforesaid), to the person in possession of the same.

(3) A debtor prohibited under clause (i) of sub-rule (1) may pay the amount of his debt into Court, and such payment shall discharge him as effectually as payment to the party entitled to receive the same.”

7. Though the Court below has marked Ex.P.10 through PW.2/Y.Murali Krishna, Deputy Branch Manager, SBI Main Branch, Madanapalle during the course of his evidence, but however came to a conclusion that the amounts credited to the respondent/J.Dr’s account are all pension amounts, and as such they cannot be attached even without verifying the amounts credited to the respondent/J.Dr’s account as per Ex.