(1.) This Civil Revision Petition is filed against Order, dated 16-02-2012, in IA.No. 80 of 2012 in OS.No. 27 of 2012, on the file of the Court of the learned Principal Senior Civil Judge, Kothagudem. The petitioner is the defendant in the abovementioned suit filed by the respondent for recovery of money. Pending the suit, the respondent filed I.A. No. 80 of 2012 for attachment of the salary of the petitioner. By Order, dated 16-02-2012, the lower Court directed the garnishee i.e., the Depot Manager, APSRTC, Bhadrachalam Depot, to attach the petitioner's salary subject to the provisions of Section 60 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908.
(2.) The petitioner has questioned this Order on the ground that the civil Court has no jurisdiction to issue an order of attachment straight away without following Rule 35 of the A.P. Agency Rules, 1924 (for short 'the Rules'), as the petitioner is resident of agency area.
(3.) After hearing Sri Nagesh Bhimapalka, learned Counsel for the petitioner, I am of the opinion that Rule 35 of the Rules, which enjoins that the Court issuing the decree shall forward the decree and a copy of the judgment in the suit to the agent to the State Government for execution, applies only to cases where the execution is in relation to attachment of immovable property situated within the agency tracts. The obvious intention behind making such stipulation is to ensure that no immovable property situated within the agency tracts is attached or sold without the same being brought to the notice of the agent. This is obviously with a view to protect the interests of the tribals, who may directly or indirectly be connected with the immovable property situated within the agency tracts. In the instant case, the subject matter of attachment is the salary of the petitioner, who is a non-tribal. The direction is given to the petitioner's employer, who is the Depot Manager, of APSRTC. The attachment does not in any manner relate to the agency tracts. Merely by reason of the borrower living in the agency area, Rule 35 does not get attracted. In the dispute between two non-tribals, totally unrelated to the immovable property situated within the agency area, the agency laws will not get attracted.