IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD THE HON’BLE SMT. JUSTICE RENUKA YARA CIVIL REVISION PETITION No. 1593 of 2025

17^th DAY OF DECEMBER, 2025 Between:

Mr.Gugloth Shankar, Bhadradri Kothagudem District.

…petitioner AND Mr.T.Anil Kumar, Bhadradri Kothagudem District and another.

…respondents

ORDER:

Heard Mr. S. Pradeep Kumar, learned counsel for the revision petitioner and Mr.P.Rama Sharana Sharma, learned counsel for the respondent. Perused the record.

2. This Civil Revision Petition is filed aggrieved by the Order dated 17.12.2024 passed in E.P. No. 45 of 2024 in O.S. No. 87 of 2023 by the learned Principal Junior Civil Judge at Yallandu, wherein, the attachment of salary of judgment debtor i.e., revision petitioner herein, was ordered.

3. The Civil Revision Petition is filed on the singular ground that the E.P. is not maintainable before a Civil Court as the judgment debtor is a resident Agency area. In that regard, Rule 35 of the A.P. Agency Rules, 1924, has been relied upon by the learned counsel for the revision petitioner. The said rule is extracted and produced below:

Rule 35 of the A.P. Agency Rules, 1924:

“Where it is sought to execute within the Agency tracts a decree passed by a Court in India situated outside the said tracts, the Court issuing the decree shall forward the decree and a copy of the judgment in the suit to the Agent to State Government who shall cause the decree to be executed in the manner provided by these rules for the execution of a decree passed by him : Provided that for reasons to be recorded, the Agent to the State Government may refuse to cause any such decree to be executed, or may at any stage of the execution order the execution of any such decree to be stayed. Provided also that such refusal or order of the agent to the State Government shall be subject to revision by the State Government.”

(verbatim reproduced)

4. Learned counsel for the respondent opposed the Civil Revision Petition stating that the Rule 35 of the A.P. Agency Rules, 1924, is not applicable to decrees, wherein, salary attachment is sought as salary attachment has nothing to do with the Agency tract. It is submitted that only when the property sought to be attached is within the boundaries of Agency tract, the Rule 35 of the A.P.

Agency Rules, 1924, is applicable.

5. Learned counsel for the revision petitioner relied upon the order passed by this Court in C.R.P. No. 3296 of 2017 dated 03.11.2017, wherein, in similar circumstances, the Civil Revision Petition was allowed granting liberty to the respondent therein to approach appropriate forum.

6. In view of the judgment passed by this Court in C.R.P. No. 3296 of 2017 and on the basis of same reasoning, the present Civil Revision Petition has to be allowed.

7. Accordingly, the Civil Revision Petition is allowed setting aside the order dated 17.12.2024 passed in E.P. No. 45 of 2024 in O.S. No. 87 of 2023 by the learned Principal Junior Civil Judge at Yallandu, as the E.P. is not maintainable. Respondent No.1 is granted liberty to move the E.P. before appropriate forum. There shall be no order as to costs.

Miscellaneous Petitions, if any pending, shall stand closed.

___________________ RENUKA YARA, J Date: 16.12.2025 gms THE HON’BLE SMT. JUSTICE RENUKA YARA CIVIL REVISION PETITION No. 1593 of 2025

16.12.2025 gms