IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED : 06.10.2021 CORAM The Hon'ble Mr.Justice Krishnan Ramasamy C.R.P (NPD)No.528 of 2015 and M.P.No.1 of 2015 The Proprietor, Saravana Stores, 129, Usman Road, Opp: Panagal Park, T.Nagar, Chennai 600 017. .. Revision Petitioner vs.

M/s. Shriram Chits Tamil Nadu Ltd., Madras 600 002. ..Respondent PRAYER:

Civil Revision Petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India to set aside the order passed in E.P.No.990 of 2013 in ARC No.1327 of 2004 dated 15.10.2014, on the file of the X Assistant Judge, City Civil Court.

For Revision Petitioner - M/S.R.N.Amarnath For Respondent - No appearance

O R D E R

This Civil Revision Petition is filed against the order passed by the Court below, viz., X Assistant Judge, City Civil Court, Chennai, in E.P.No.990 of 2013, in ARC No.1327 of 2004 dated 15.10.2014.

2. The brief facts of the case are as follows:-

The respondent herein is the decree-holder. He filed an Execution Petition in E.P.No.1992 of 2007 praying to execute the decree passed in ARC No.1327 of 2004, dated 31.03.2005. In the said Execution Petition, judgment debtors 2 and 3 remained absent, hence, attachment of salary of judgement debtors 2 and 3 was ordered and pro order for attachment was also served on the Garnishee of the judgment debtors 2 and 3. On 10.06.2008, as the Garnishee for 3^rd judgment debtor remained absent, the attachment order as against the 3^rd judgment debtor was made absolute. Thereafter, the respondent-decree holder filed a Petition in E.P.No.990 of 2013, under Order 21 Rule 46 (b) CPC, to direct the garnishee to depart the attached amount from third defendant's salary, viz., R.Iyappan, as per the order, dated 10.06.2008 passed in E.P.No.1992 of 2007. According to the respondent/decree holder, the 3^rd judgment debtor is working as Salesman in the Proprietory concern, namely, New Saravana Stores (Bramandamai), the revision petitioner herein.

3. It is the contention of the learned counsel for the revision petitioner that the respondent-decree holder filed E.P.No.990 of 2013 praying to execute the decree in favour of the five defendants. Amongst five defendants, the Garnishee of the 3^rd defendant is the revision petitioner before this Court. In the Execution Petition, the revision petitioner is not a party but only a Garnishee order has been passed, directing the revision petitioner to attach the salary of R.Iyyappan and discharge the decretal amount in favour of the respondent-decree holder. Aggrieved by the said garnishee order, the revision petitioner approached the Court below and has stated that the 3^rd defendant in the suit, is not at all working in their Concern, viz., ''Saravana Stores''.

3.1 The learned counsel for the revision petitioner pointed out that the impugned order, viz., garnishe order was passed against the Proprietor of ''Saravana Stores'', viz., Mr. Pondurai, and therefore, notice has to be served on the said Mr.Pondurai, Proprietor of Saravana Stores, whereas, the notice was served wrongly to the Proprietor of New Saravana Stores (Bramandamai) situated at No.129, Usman Road, T.Nagar, Chennai, as if the 3^rd defendant, Mr.R.Iyyappan is employed under them. The learned counsel further contended ''Saravana Stores'', and New Saravana Stores (Bramandamai) are two different entities. The respondent-decree holder is quite aware of this fact and in spite the same, they served notice to the revision petitioner herein, viz., Saravana Stores, 129, Usman Road, Opp: Panagal Park, T.Nagar, Chennai 600 017. Though the same was brought to the knowledge of the Court below, the Court below only found fault with the revision petitioner and stated that onus is cast upon on the revision petitioner to prove that the 3^rd defendant, Mr.R.Iyyappan is not at all employed under them.

3.2 Further, the learned counsel submitted that, once the revision petitioner denies that the third defendant, Mr.R.Iyyappan is not working in their Concern, it is for the respondent/decree ho