Legal Document View

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

- Know your Kanoon - Doc Gen Hub - Counter Argument - Case Predict AI - Talk with IK Doc - ...
Upgrade to Premium
[Cites 1, Cited by 0]

Andhra Pradesh High Court - Amravati

Palaka Suresh vs Palaka Sunayana Grace And Others on 19 November, 2024

 APHC010343502024
                    IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH
                                 AT AMARAVATI              [3330]
                           (Special Original Jurisdiction)


       TUESDAY ,THE NINETEENTH DAY OF NOVEMBER
           TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FOUR

                              PRESENT

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE TARLADA RAJASEKHAR RAO

             CIVIL REVISION PETITION No: 1792/2024

 BETWEEN:

 Palaka Suresh                                      ...Petitioner

                                AND

 Palaka Sunayana Grace and Others              ...Respondent(s)

 Counsel for the Petitioner:

    1. V VIJAYA VARDHAN

 Counsel for the Respondent(S):

    1. TADDI NAGESWARA RAO

 The Court made the following:
                                   2




ORDER:

The present Civil Revision Petition is presented before this Court being aggrieved by the docket order dated 16.07.2024 in E.P. No.209 of 2018 in PLC No.16 of 2016, on the file of the District Judge at Vizianagaram.

2. The Lok Adalat Bench at Saluru, vide its order dated 16.04.2016, directed the petitioner herein (who is the respondent before the Lok Adalat in PLC 16 of 2016) to pay an amount of Rs.10,000/- to each of the petitioners 1 and 2 (the children of the petitioner herein) on or before the 10th day of each succeeding month.

3. In order to implement the order dated 16.04.2010 in PLC 16 of 2016, on the file of the Lok Adalat Bench at Salur, petitioners 1 and 2, represented by their guardian grandmother, filed Execution Petition No. 209 of 2018, on the file of the District Judge, Vizianagaram, seeking attachment of salary under Order XXI Rule 48 CPC to realize the amount due under the award. 3

4. Accordingly, the learned District Judge issued a notice to the garnishee of the judgment debtor through Court, by registered post on payment of process, vide order dated 16.07.2024.

5. The present Civil Revision Petition is filed challenging this order on the grounds that no opportunity was given to the petitioner herein, who is the respondent in PLC 16 of 2016, and the authority under legal services authority had no jurisdiction to deliver such an order and also contended that there was no authorization from the mother of Respondent Nos. 1 and 2 to file the Execution Petition before the District Judge, Vizianagaram.

6. Even if an order is void, the party must approach the appropriate forum to have the order set aside. However, the petitioner has neither assailed the order nor sought to have it set aside, and made the order final.

7. As seen from the impugned order, a notice was issued to the garnishee of the judgment debtor. No adverse order was made against the petitioner.

8. A notice is required to be issued to the garnishee under Order XXI Rule 46 A of CPC which reads thus:

The Court may in the case of a debt (other than a debt secured by a mortgage or a charge) which has been 4 attached under rule 46, upon the application of the attaching creditor, issue notice to the garnishee liable to pay such debt, calling upon him either to pay into Court the debt due from him to the judgment-debtor or so much thereof as may be sufficient to satisfy the decree and costs of execution, or to appear and show cause why he should not do so.

9. Under Order XXI, Rule 46-A of the Civil Procedure Code, in case, if the garnishee fails to respond to the notice under Order 21, Rule 46-A C.P.C. then only the court is empowered to pass an Order under Order XXI, Rule 46-B of C.P.C. But when the garnishee appears and puts forth their objections, the court has to enquire as to the dispute raised by the garnishee as contemplated under Order XXI, Rule 46-C of C.P.C.

10. There is no illegality committed by the learned District Judge in ordering notice under Order XXI Rule 48 of the CPC, as per the docket order dated 16.07.2024. Therefore, even assuming that the execution petition E.P. was filed without prior authorization, no adverse order has been passed against the petitioner herein.

11. Hence, the Civil Revision Petition sans merit and accordingly it is dismissed. No order as to costs. 5

As a sequel, interlocutory applications, if any pending in this Civil Revision Petition shall stand closed.

___________________________________ JUSTICE TARLADA RAJASEKHAR RAO Date: 19.11.2024 Harin 6 THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE TARLADA RAJASEKHARA RAO 100 C.R.P.No. 1792 OF 2024 Date: 19-11-2024 Harin