KUCHIMANCHI NAGAMANI Vs. M PRASADA AGNIHOTRUDU

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner, who is the decreeholder, has filed this revision against the orders in 1-A.No. 343 of 1994 in O.S.No. 19 of 1985 dated 28-11-1995 on the file of the Subordinate Judge, Razole dismissing the cheque petition filed for withdrawal of the amounts in deposit.

(2.) The brief relevant facts necessary for the purpose of this revision are that the petitioner had filed O.S.No. 19 of 1985 originally in the Court of Subordinate Judge, Amalapuram for recovery of Rs. 20,000/- on the basis of the promissory note executed by the respondents herein. Pending the suit, she obtained orders of garnishee attachment of the amounts lying with the Executive Engineer, Godavari Central Division, Dhawaleswaram, which were subsequently made absolute on 16-4-1985. Subsequently, the suit was transferred to the Court of Subordinate Judge at Razole. As the amount was not deposited, the petitioner had filed LA. No. 242 of 1991 for implementation of the said orders and accordingly a sum of Rs. 32,235/- was deposited on 15-7-1991 through a demand draft, though under protest. In that application, notice was given to the Assistant Government Pleader, who was representing the said authority. Ultimately, the suit was decreed on 29-1-1992. The present application seeking issuance of cheque for the amount in deposit added with the interest accrued by way of fixed deposit was filed. On notice, a counter-affidavit in detail was filed by the said authority raising several objections for withdrawal of the said amount, mainly on the ground that the judgment-debtors are not entitled to the amount as there has been a breach on their part and the amount is yet to be settled. Further, the amount attached was only an advance payment but not towards any bills. With these and several other objections, die payment was objected to.

(3.) The Court below on a consideration of these objections has dismissed the application mainly on the ground that any such attachment made is only to safeguard the interest of the plaintiff-decreeholder, but it does not entitle the plaintiff to make any claim thereon without proving the ownership.