IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE N.TUKARAMJI CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.4368 OF 2025 DATE :05.01.2026 Between:

Kalaveni Surender.

…Petitioner AND Sriram Kanakaiah.

…Respondent

ORDER:

This Civil Revision Petition is filed assailing the order dated

01.09.2025 passed in E.P. No.150 of 2025 in O.S. No.485 of 2022 on the file of the Court of the Second Additional Junior Civil Judge, Karimnagar.

2. The petitioner is the defendant/judgment debtor in the suit. The impugned order pertains to an attachment warrant issued by the Executing Court in execution of the decree passed in the said suit.

3. The principal contention advanced by the petitioner is that the decree was obtained ex parte, without proper or effective service of summons upon him. It is urged that the alleged substituted service effected by way of newspaper publication was carried out in a newspaper that does not enjoy circulation in his locality, thereby rendering the service defective and violative of Order V Rules 17 to 20 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (CPC). Further contends that he is a salaried individual earning a meager income, and the attachment of his salary pursuant to the impugned order would seriously affect his livelihood and subsistence. It is further submitted that the petitioner has already filed an application under Order IX Rule 13 CPC before the trial Court for setting aside the ex parte decree, which is presently pending adjudication. On these grounds, the petitioner seeks the indulgence of this Court to set aside the attachment warrant issued by the Executing Court.

4. I have considered the submissions of learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the record.

5. The record reveals that the Execution Petition was filed within the limitation period prescribed under Article 136 of the Limitation Act, 1963, and the attachment warrant was issued pursuant to a valid and subsisting decree passed by a competent Civil Court. The Executing Court, in issuing the warrant, merely exercised its jurisdiction under Order XXI Rules 30 and 46 CPC, which empower it to enforce execution of money decrees through attachment of property or salary of the judgment debtor. Thus, on the face of the record, there is no procedural irregularity or jurisdictional error attributable to the Executing Court in passing the impugned order.

6. It is well settled that the powers of a Revisional Court under Section 115 CPC are confined to examining jurisdictional errors, material irregularities, or legal improprieties committed by the subordinate court. This Court cannot, in the exercise of revisional jurisdiction, sit in appeal over the findings of the Executing Court or re-assess the merits of the decree sought to be executed.

7. It is settled preposition that an Executing Court cannot go behind the decree and the Executing Court’s duty is limited to enforcement and not re-examination of the correctness of the decree.

8. In the present case, the grievance raised by the petitioner relates not to the execution process but to the validity of the ex parte decree itself. Such a grievance cannot be entertained in execution or revision proceedings but must be addressed through the pending Order IX Rule 13 CPC application before the trial court.

9. It is evident that the petitioner’s remedy lies in pursuing the application to set aside the ex parte decree rather than seeking to obstruct its execution. Therefore, the attachment warrant issued by the Executing Court cannot be said to be illegal or without jurisdiction. The petitioner’s argument that attachment of his salary affects his livelihood, though sympathetic, cannot override a lawfully passed and executable decree. The protection under Section 60(1)(i) CPC which exempts a portion of salary from attachment adequately safeguards his subsistence needs.

10. In view of the foregoing discussion, it is clear that the impugned order of the Executing Court suffers from no illegality, irregularity