ORDER

Heard Mr. P. Venkanna, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. N. Srikanth Goud, learned counsel for respondent No.1.

Respondent Nos.2 and 3 are not necessary parties and the said fact is mentioned in cause title itself.

2. This revision is filed under Section - 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, challenging the order dated 06.04.2024 passed in E.P. No.176 of 2018.

3. On the application filed by respondent No.1, the Sole Arbitrator/Retired Administrative Officer, Karimnagar, had passed an award dated 18.10.2014 vide Arbitration Case No.133 of 2013, directing the petitioner herein and respondent Nos.2 and 3 to pay an amount of Rs.1,32,999/- along with interest @ 10% per annum from the date of petition i.e., 01.02.2013 till the date of award and @ 18% per annum on the awarded amount from the date of award till the date of entire realization. They shall also pay Rs.7,742/- towards costs of the arbitration proceedings. It has also held that the petitioner herein and respondent Nos.2 and 3 are jointly and severally liable to pay the said amount.

4. Respondent No.1 herein had filed an execution petition vide E.P. No.176 of 2018 in ARB No.133 of 2013 seeking execution of the said award against the petitioner and respondent No.3 herein, judgment debtor Nos.2 and 3 for recovery of Rs.2,52,306/- each from them. Vide order dated 06.04.2024, learned Principal District Judge at Karimangar, directed the Disbursing Officer of the petitioner i.e., the Superintendent, Office of the Government Civil Hospital, Jagtial, Jagtial District, to withhold the amount of Rs.2,52,306/- from the monthly salary of the petitioner herein. He is judgment debtor No.3 in the said E.P.

5. It is contended by learned counsel for the petitioner herein that notice was not served on the petitioner in the arbitration proceedings and the paper publication given in the Newspaper was not widely circulated in the area where the petitioner resides and it is against the purport of Order - V, Rule 20 of CPC. Thus, the petitioner was not given any opportunity to contest the proceedings before the Tribunal. Perusal of the award would reveal that the notice sent to his address returned as no such house number and addressee left.

Therefore, the Tribunal was constrained to order for publication in a daily newspaper which is widely circulated in the locality in which the petitioner resided. Accordingly, paper publication had given in ‘Varthalu’ Newspaper. Despite paper publication, the petitioner did not appear before the Arbitrator and, therefore, he was set ex parte.

6. As rightly contended by learned counsel, the petitioner was not given sufficient opportunity before the Arbitration proceedings.

Even the paper publication published in ‘Varthalu’ daily newspaper is not a widely circulated paper and, therefore, the petitioner was not in a position to appear before the Arbitrator to proceed with the proceedings. The said aspect was also not considered by the Executing Court while ordering attachment of salary of the petitioner.

7. It is also relevant to note that, learned Executing Court issued similar order directing the Disbursing Officer of judgment debtor No.3 to withhold the said amount of Rs.2,52,306/- from his salaries as per Section - 60 of CPC after deducting standard deduction plus one thousand and 2/3rd of remaining gross salary and shall remit balance 1/3rd of salary every month from the date of receipt of the warrant. The amount may be sent by D.D.

8. Thus, the Executing Court directed the Disbursing Officer of judgment debtor No.3 and to deduct and recover an amount of Rs.2,52,306/- from his salary except judgment debtor No.1. In fact, the aforesaid execution petition was filed by respondent No.1 -

decree-holder to execute the award for Rs.2,52,306/- from judgment debtor Nos.2 and 3. There is no explanation from respondent No.1 -

decree-holder as t