THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE N. TUKARAMJI CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.2527 of 2025

ORDER:

This Civil Revision Petition is filed by the petitioner/judgment debtor No.2 with a prayer to allow the revision by setting aside the Warrant of Salary Attachment dated 11.06.2025 in ARB E.P.No.44 of 2024 in ARB Case No.736 of

2013 on the file of the I Additional District Judge, Karimnagar.

2. Heard Mr. P. Venkanna, learned counsel for the revision petitioner and Mr. N. Srikanth Goud, learned counsel for the respondent No.1/decree-holder.

3. Briefly stated, the relevant facts are that respondent No.1 initiated arbitration proceedings before the Sole Arbitrator in Arbitration Case No. 736 of 2013. These proceedings culminated in an Award dated 28.06.2014. Thereafter, respondent No.1 filed Execution Petition No.44 of 2024 seeking enforcement of the Award by way of salary attachment.

4. Learned counsel for the revision petitioner submits that respondent No.2 had availed a loan of Rs.2,00,000/- from respondent No.1/Company, for which the revision petitioner and respondent No.3 stood as sureties. The sole ground urged by the petitioner is that the execution petition has been instituted nearly ten years after the Award. Notwithstanding this delay, the executing Court, without properly examining the question of valid service of notice under Order XXI Rule 22 of the Code of Civil Procedure (CPC) upon the revision petitioner, proceeded to order salary attachment. Counsel further points out that, according to the execution petition, the petitioner was shown as employed at the Primary Health Centre, Hasanparthi. However, the petitioner had been transferred on 13.06.2018 to CD Dharoor Camp, Jagtial, where he continues to serve. The record clearly reflects that the Rule 22 notice was sent to the Primary Health Centre, Hasanparthi, and was returned with the endorsement ‘refused.’ Treating such return as valid service, the executing Court proceeded further, which, according to counsel, is ex facie improper. It is also contended that the Court failed to follow the mandatory procedure before issuing a warrant of salary attachment. Hence, interference of this Court is prayed for.

5. In response, learned counsel for respondent No.1 contends that the notice was dispatched to the address furnished in the contract, and as it was returned with the endorsement ‘refused,’ the executing Court was justified in treating the service as proper and proceeding in accordance with law. Therefore, no interference is warranted.

6. I have perused the materials on record.

7. The foundational facts, namely, the initiation of arbitral proceedings in 2013, the passing of the Award in 2014, and the filing of the execution petition in 2024, are borne out by the record.

8. Under Order XXI Rule 22 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, issuance of a show cause notice is mandatory when execution is sought after the lapse of two years from the date of the decree or award. In the present case, the execution petition discloses that notice was sent to the address shown therein, namely, the Primary Health Centre, Hasanparthi, and the same was returned with the endorsement ‘refused.’ The executing Court, relying upon this endorsement, treated the notice as duly served and proceeded with the attachment of salary.

9. However, the revision petitioner has produced a copy of the relieving letter dated 13.06.2018, which explicitly demonstrates that he had been transferred and was, at the relevant time, serving at the Office of the Medical Officer, Community Health Centre, CD Dharoor Camp, Jagtial. In that view, the refusal endorsement on the notice sent to the earlier place of posting cannot, in law, be construed as proper service. Consequently, the petitioner’s contention that he was deprived of an opportunity to place his explanation before the executing Court merits acceptance. The finding of the executing Court treating such service as valid, and thereafter issuing a warrant of salary attachment, theref