ORDER

This petition is directed against the impugned order dated

08.01.2024 passed in Com.Ex.Pet.No.190/2022 by the X Additional District & Sessions Judge (Dedicated Commercial Court), Bengaluru Rural District, Bengaluru, whereby the application IA.No.II filed by the petitioner-Decree holder was dismissed and IA No.III filed by respondent No.2- Garnishee was allowed by the Trial Court.

2. Heard learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioner and learned counsel appearing for respondent No.2 and perused the material on record.

3. The material on record indicates that in the aforesaid commercial execution proceedings initiated by the petitioner against respondent no.1-judgement debtor, the petitioner-decree holder filed I.A.No.II seeking attachment of amount belonging to respondent no.1-judgement debtor available in the hands of respondent no.2 - Garnishee/BESCOM. Apart from opposing the said application, respondent no.2-Garnishee/BESCOM also filed application IA.No.III recalling of the order dated 18.11.2022 passed by the Executing Court attaching amount in the account of respondent no.2-garnishee. The said application I.A.No.III was opposed by the petitioner-decree holder. After hearing the petitioner-decree holder and respondent no.2-garnishee/BESCOM, the Executing Court proceeded to pass the impugned order dismissing I.A.No.II filed by the petitioner-decree holder and allowing I.A.No.III filed by respondent no.2-Garnishee by recalling order of attachment. Aggrieved by the impugned order I.A.Nos.II &

III, the petitioner is before this Court by way of present petition.

4. A perusal of the impugned order will indicate that the Trial Court has miss-directed itself in coming to the erroneous conclusion that since there is a dispute between respondent no.1- judgment debtor and respondent no.2-garnishee, who contends that it has forfeited the amount from respondent no.1, the question of attaching the said amount would not arise. In my opinion, the trial court failed to appreciate that the interse dispute between respondent no.1- judgment debtor and respondent no.2-Garnishee has no nexus or connection whatsoever to the claim of the petitioner - Decree holder and the said circumstance cannot be made the basis for respondent no.2-Garnishee to either oppose attachment or make payment in favour of respondent no.1 pending disposal of execution proceedings. Under these circumstances, I am of the view that the impugned order passed by the Trial Court deserves to be set aside and I.A.No.II and I.A.No.III deserves to be disposed of by directing respondent no.2- Garnishee/BESCOM not to make any payment in favour of respondent no.1-judgement debtor till disposal of execution proceedings.

5. In the result, I pass the following:-

ORDER

(i) Petition is hereby allowed.

(ii) The impugned order dated 08.01.2024 passed on I.A.No.2 in Com.Ex.Pet.No.190/2022 by the Commercial court is hereby set aside.

(iii) I.A.No.2 filed by the petitioner – Decree Holder stands allowed, while I.A.No.3 filed by the 2nd respondent – Garnishee /

BESCOM stands dismissed.

(iv) The 2nd respondent – Garnishee is directed not to make any payment in favour of the 1st respondent – Judgment Debtor till disposal of the Execution Proceedings.

(v) The Executing Court (Commercial Court) is directed to dispose of the Execution proceedings as expeditiously as possible.