An executing Court is not mandatorily required to issue notice to a Garnishee under Order XXI Rule 46A of the CPC for attachment of a debt if the Garnishee has already complied with the attachment order under Rule 46, and the burden of proof for establishing exemption under Section 60 rests on the debtor.

JUDGMENT: (Per Hon’ble Justice Moushumi Bhattacharya)

1. The Commercial Court Appeal assails an order dated 31.12.2025 passed by the learned Commercial Court at Hyderabad (‘Commercial Court’) dismissing the application (C.E.A. No.92 of 2025) filed by the appellant/Judgment-Debtor in an Execution Petition (CEP.No.14 of 2025) filed by the respondent No.1/Decree Holder. The application filed by the appellant was for setting aside the order dated 03.03.2025 passed in CEP.No.14 of 2025 whereby the Commercial Court directed the State Bank of India/Garnishee to withhold the sums lying in the SCR Treasury Account and for releasing the SCR Treasury Account from any attachment or prohibitory order.

2. The Commercial Court dismissed the appellant’s application and confirmed its earlier order dated 03.03.2025 passed in C.E.P.No.14 of 2025 for attachment of the appellant’s Bank Account bearing No.62337131167 being maintained with the respondent No.2/ Garnishee (State Bank of India, Himmat Nagar Branch). The Commercial Court held that the objections raised by the appellant challenging the order dated 03.03.2025 were not tenable and hence the said order was not liable to be set aside.

3. The appellant/Judgment-Debtor is the Ministry of Railways. The respondent No.2/State Bank of India is the Garnishee. Krishnapatnam Railway Company Limited is the respondent No.1/Decree Holder.

4. Learned counsel appearing for the appellant/Judgment-Debtor submits that the procedure prescribed under Order XXI Rule 46 and 46A of The Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (‘CPC’) must be complied with before the Court can issue directions on the respondent No.2/Garnishee (State Bank of India) to withhold sums lying in the Treasury Account of the Judgment-Debtor. Counsel also submits that certain amounts lying in the Treasury Account of the Judgment-Debtor which are statutorily exempted from attachment under proviso to section 60(1) of The Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (‘CPC’) and section 3 of The Provident Funds Act, 1925 (‘the 1925 Act’) as well as The Public Provident Fund Act, 1968 (‘the 1968 Act’).

5. With regard to the first objection, counsel submits that by order dated 03.03.2025, the Commercial Court attached the amount lying in the SCR Treasury Account and only thereafter issued notice to the Garnishee under Order XXI Rule 46A of the CPC inviting objections. According to counsel, first a mandatory notice has to be issued to the Garnishee under Order XXI Rule 46A which the Commercial Court failed to comply with. The second objection taken by counsel on behalf of the appellant is that the Commercial Court directed attachment of the appellant’s account maintained with the Garnishee despite the immunity available in clauses under the proviso to section 60(1) of the CPC and section 3 of the 1925 Act.

6. Learned Senior Counsel appearing for the respondent No.1 submits that the Commercial Court rightly dismissed the appellant’s application since the appellant had failed to provide any particulars as to how its account would fall within the exemptions under proviso to section 60(1) of the CPC. Senior Counsel submits that the appellant was failed to furnish the required proof/details in order to claim the benefit of exemptions delineated under the proviso to section 60(1) of the CPC. It is submitted that the application filed by the appellant is not maintainable under section 47 of the CPC since the questions arising between