APHC010440572024 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI [3332]

(Special Original Jurisdiction)

WEDNESDAY, THE ELEVENTH DAY OF MARCH TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY SIX PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE RAVI CHEEMALAPATI CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO: 2296/2024 Between:

1. M ekathoti Yesupadam @ Seshu Babu, S/o. Yesu Ratnam, Aged 59 years, Court Employee (Retd.), Ameena, X-addl. District Court, Gurajala, R/o.D.no. 1-833, Ajay Nagar, 23rd ward, Mangalagiri town, Guntur district. ...PETITIONER AND

1. T amada Ratna Kumari, W/o. Govinda Raju Aged 48 Years, R/o.

Kovelamudi Village, Vatticherukuri Mandal, Guntur District, Guntur D.M.C., Andhra Pradesh.

...RESPONDENT Petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the grounds filed herein, the High Court may be pleased to set aside the impugned order dated 09.09.2024 in E.P.No.15 of 2024 in O.S. No. 282 of 2018, on the file of Civil Judge (Senior Division), Gurajala, thereby allow the Civil Revision Petition and pass IA NO: 1 OF 2024 Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to pass orders by grating the stay of the operation of the execution of order dated: 09.09.2024 in E.P.No.15/2024 in O.S.No.282 of 2018 on the file of Hon’ble Civil Judge (Senior Division), Gurajala, Guntur District, pending disposal of the main revision petition and pass Counsel for the Petitioner:

1. B PRAKASAM Counsel for the Respondent:

1. VENKATA DURGA RAO ANANTHA The Court made the following order:

The present civil revision petition is filed by the petitioner assailing the correctness and legality of the orders dated 09.09.2024 in E.P.No.15 of 2024 on the file of learned Civil Judge (Senior Division), Gurajala in O.S.No.282/2018 on the file of the Court of the learned IV Additional Senior Civil Judge, Guntur.

2. The brief facts of the case that led to filing of this revision are as follows:

(a) The petitioner is the J.Dr/defendant in O.S.No.282/2018 and the respondent is the D.Hr/Plaintiff. The respondent filed O.S.No.282/2018 for recovery of money basing on the promissory notes. The said suit was decreed under its order dated 13.07.2023 for realization of the amount. The respondent/D.Hr filed E.P.No.15 of 2024 under Order 21 Rule 52 of CPC, 1908 seeking attachment of the retirement benefits of the petitioner/J.Dr through his Garnishee for recovery of decretal amount. Opposing the said application, the petitioner/J.Dr filed counter contending that the said application is not maintainable since the J.Dr has retired from service and that retirement benefits cannot be attached. After hearing both the parties, the court below allowed the said E.P. making the attachment absolute and accordingly directed to serve attach warrant to the Garnishee and further directed to communicate the same through a letter to the Garnishee and an amount of Rs.15,00,000/- is ordered to be sent to the credit of the suit. Assailing the said order, the J.Dr/petitioner filed the present civil revision petition.

3. Heard Sri B.Prakasam, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri Bulla Samba Siva Rao, learned counsel representing learned counsel for the respondent.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner in elaboration to what has been stated in the grounds of revision and the contents of the counter affidavit filed in the E.P., would contend that, D.Hr simply filed the E.P., seeking attachment of retirement benefits of the petitioner but did not specifically mentioned about the head of that retirement benefits. He further submitted that, under Section 60 (g),(k),(ka),(Kb),(l),(n) and (o) of CPC, 1908, the gratuity, provident fund, leave salary and life insurance policy cannot be attached. Despite raising the said grounds in the counter, the court below, basing on assumptions and presumptions, has erroneously came to a conclusion that, leave salary/earned leave is attachable under section 60