A garnishee's obligations in execution proceedings include adherence to specified amounts withheld; compliance affirmed despite challenges to subsequent attachments.

Headnote:(A) Civil Procedure Code, 1908 - Order XXI, Rules 46(A) and 46

(B) - Execution proceedings - Garnishee challenges attachment order due to non-payment obligations - Past compliance acknowledged - Execution petition leads to incorrect amounts specified for withholding by garnishee - Court orders garnishee to pay remaining amount in full after adjustments. (Paras 8, 12, 16, 18)

(B) Garnishee obligations - Court affirms garnishee's compliance and procedural missteps did not undermine justice - Technicalities should not impede justice delivery. (Paras 10, 17)

Facts of the case:
The garnishee faced execution for attachments related to a decree for recovery entered against the judgment debtor, leading to disputes over the amount to be withheld. Past sums were duly withheld, but disagreements arose about subsequent attachments and compliance.

Findings of Court:
The docket order was set aside, and the garnishee was directed to issue payment to the decree holder, resolving the amount due after proper adjustments.

Issues: The key issues addressed pertained to the garnishee's obligations, the correctness of the amounts to be withheld, and procedural adherence in execution matters.

Ratio Decidendi: The court established that the garnishee complied with initial orders, and any subsequent claims needed careful court specification - the ultimate aim was to ensure just outcomes over strict procedural adherence.

Result: Revision petition allowed.

ORDER

The garnishee in execution proceedings, namely the Chief Internal Audit Officer of TANGEDCO and the Secretary, TNEB is the revision petitioners herein.

2.I have heard Mr.Anand Gopalan for M/s.Agam Legal, learned counsel for the petitioners and Mr.S.Prabhu, learned counsel for the 1^st respondent and Mr.Pa.Sai Govindaraja, learned counsel for the 2^nd respondent.

3.The garnishee/revision petitioners challenges the docket order dated 02.03.2024 in EP.No.83 of 2022, in and by which, the executing Court, finding that the garnishee has not settled the amount, despite several opportunities given, allowed the execution petition and ordered attachment.

4.The learned counsel for the revision petitioners would submit that the 1^st respondent/plaintiff filed a suit for recovery of money against the 2^nd respondent/defendant. The suit claim was based on a promissory note executed by the 2^nd respondent/defendant. The suit came to be decreed on 17.02.2017 for a total sum of Rs.3,39,200/-. In order to execute the decree, the plaintiff filed EP.No.91 of 2017 and attachment of salary of the judgment debtor, namely the 2^nd respondent herein has sought for to an extent of Rs.18,000/- per month. The amount payable in the EP was quantified as Rs.6,51,640/-. The executing Court has ordered notice in the execution petition to the revision petitioners who were arrayed as the garnishee. The judgment debtor remained ex-parte in the execution proceedings as well and though the judgment debtor filed an application in E.A.No.9 of 2019 to set aside the ex-parte order, the application also came to be dismissed. In the meantime, the revision petitioners/garnishee had received notice from the executing Court, directing the executing Court to withhold a sum of Rs.18,000/- from the salary of the judgment debtor and remit the same to the Sub Court, Udumalpet.

5.The learned counsel for the petitioners would further state that the said direction of the executing Court was complied with by the revision petitioners and a sum of Rs.9,000/- was withheld from the salary for two months and the amounts were remitted to the Court through cheques dated 09.03.2018 and 06.04.2018. Recording satisfaction, the Sub Court closed EP.No.91 of 2017.

6.It is the specific case of the revision petitioners that thereafter, the revision petitioners have not received any notice or directions regarding any further attachment of salary, pursuant to the decree in O.S.No.22 of 2017. The learned counsel for the petitioners would further state that the judgment debtor, being an employee of TANGEDCO, as the garnishee was on unauthorised absence from service and no salary was paid to him, with effect from 05.01.2021, parallelly disciplinary action was initiated against him for the unauthorised absence and the proceedings culminated in order dated 06.10.2023, where punishment of compulsory retirement was imposed on the judgment debtor. The appeal preferred by the judgment debtor was also rejected. In the interregnum period, it appears that the decree holder alleging non-compliance by the revision petitioners, has filed EP.No.83 of 2022 under Order XXI Rules 46(A) and 46(B) of CPC , seeking attachment of the salary of the 2^nd respondent, quantifying the amount at Rs.6,92,315/-. Even in the said execution petition, the defendant/judgment debtor remained ex-parte and the revision petitioners garnishee alone entered appearance and filed a counter, stating that the garnishee was only required to deduct Rs.18,000/- and the same has been complied with already and thereafter, there has been no further directions to withhold any further amounts, despite the same being brought to the notice by way of a detailed counter affidavit, the executing Court has passed the impugned order.

7.The learned counsel for the petitioners would further state that though the first EP in EP.No.91 of 2017 was closed way back on 02.07.2019 and the second EP in EP.No.83 of 2022 was filed only on 27.06.2022, by which time, the discip

Click Here to Read the rest of this document