THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE NARSING RAO NANDIKONDA CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.656 of 2025

ORDER:

This Civil Revision Petition is filed by the petitioner-

Defendant/JDR aggrieved by the order of attachment warrant of retirement benefits, dated 02.01.2025 in EP No.8 of 2022 in OS No.22 of 2021 on the file of Prl.Junior Civil Judge, Gadwal.

2. Brief facts of the case are that respondent/plaintiff/DHR earlier filed OS No.22 of 2021 on the file of the Addl.Junior Civil Judge, Gadwal, seeking recovery for an amount of Rs.13,76,000/- with interest @ 12% per annum, the said suit was decreed in favour of plaintiff on 01.04.2021, thereafter, the plaintiff filed EP No.8 of 2022 and the said Executing petition was decreed in favour of plaintiff, and the defendant did not choose to contest the suit as well as execution petition, as such, the defendant was set ex-parte. The said ex-parte decree was passed by the Principle Junior Civil Judge, Gadwal, in favour of plaintiff for a sum of Rs.13,76,000/- with interest @ 12% p.a from the date of suit till the date of decree and future interest @ 6% p.a. on the principle sum of Rs.4,00,000/- (Promissory note dated 10.01.2018) from the date of decree till the date of realisation. Aggrieved by the said order of Execution Petition order, dated 02.01.2025, the present revision petition is filed.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the ex-parte decree was passed showing the petitioner’s office address and the name of the petitioner as Md.Amanulla Khan S/o.Md.Ikramulla, infact the petitioner name is only Md.Amanullah and the petitioner obtained any loan from the respondent nor the petitioner never met the respondent. It is further contended that the respondent in collusion with Mr.D.Shyamsunder Rao have obtained the ex-parte decree. It is further contended that after retirement, the petitioner is residing at Hanmakonda District along with his family members, however, the petitioner came to know of the said proceedings after dispatch of the order passed by the trial Court in EP No.8 of 2022, dated 02.01.2025 and further contended that the said decree was illegal one and was obtained by the respondent by misguiding the trial Court and prays this Court to set aside the order passed by the trial Court in EP No.8 of

2022.

4. Learned counsel for the respondent submits that the trial Court has rightly decreed the suit and allowed the execution petition by considering the oral and documentary evidence and needs no interference by this Court and prayed this Court to dismiss the present revision petition.

5. Heard Sri G.Rajeshwar Rao, learned counsel for the petitioner/defendant/JDR and Sri Ajgal Ravi Babu, learned counsel for the respondent/plaintiff/DHR.

6. Vide the impugned order, dated 02.01.2025, the trial Court issued the order of attachment warrant, attaching the retirement benefits of the petitioner/defendant. On perusal of the impugned order of the 02.01.2025, wherein the trial Court after considering the fact that inspite service of notice on the defendant, he did not choose to either appear or file counter- affidavit. Hence, after considering the arguments of the execution petitioner, the defendant was set ex-parte and the trial Court has ordered to attach the retirement benefits of the defendant/JDR to the extent, which are liable to be attached under Section 60 of C.P.C.

7. The point that arose before this Court for consideration is that:

“1. Whether the petitioner has made out any grounds to interfere with the impugned order passed by trial Court.?

2. If so, to what relief?

8. The main grievance of the petitioner under this revision petition is that the petitioner never obtained any loan from the respondent and that the suit was filed basing on the forged promissory note, dated 10.01.2018, which has been created by the respondent/plaintiff in collusion with one Sri D.Shyamsunder Rao, but the said aspect cannot be gone into this stage after the execution court passed order in Execution Petition.

9.