D ANASUYA Vs. MELLACHARUVU RAJESWARA RAO

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This Civil Revision Petition is directed against the order dated 25-04-2013 in E.P. No. 56 of 2013 in O.S. No. 87 of 2012 passed by the Principal Senior Civil Judge, Kothagudem, ordering attachment of salary of the revision petitioner/judgment debtor. The facts, which are necessary for disposal of the present revision, are that the 1st respondent herein filed a suit for recovery of money against the revision petitioner, which was decreed on 19-02-2013 and thereafter, as the revision petitioner has not paid the decreetal amount, the 1st respondent filed E.P. No. 56 of 2013 under Order XXI Rule 48 of the Code of Civil Procedure for execution of the decree dated 19-02-2013. The Court below issued salary attachment warrant on 25-04-2013 directing the employer of the revision petitioner to withhold/attach a sum of Rs. 3,48,170/- being the E.P. amount from the salary of the revision petitioner/judgment debtor in monthly installments subject to Section 60 CPC after deducting the first Rs. 1,000/- and 2/3rd of the salary, the remaining 1/3rd of the salary in (24) months until further orders or the entire debt is discharged, whichever is earlier and remit the said sum (or monthly installments) to the credit to the above E.P. by way of demand draft, drawn in favour of Principal Senior Civil Judge, Kothagudem. Against the said salary attachment warrant, the present Civil Revision Petition has been filed.

(2.) Learned counsel for the revision petitioner contends that the decree itself is nullity as the Civil Court has no jurisdiction to pass decree as well as to issue salary attachment warrant on the ground that both the parties are residing in the schedule area. He further contends that the said decree is an ex parte decree and the petition under Order IX Rule 13 CPC was filed, which is still pending for consideration and until the said petition is disposed of, the decree cannot be executed. He placed reliance on judgment in Civil Appeal Nos. 5030-5036 of 2004 dated 25-09-2012. He also stated that in the promissory note the residence of the 1st respondent was mentioned as Lakshmidevipalli, Kothagudem, Khammam District and the said village comes under the scheduled area in the notification issued by the Government of India. As such, as the decree as well as salary attachment warrant are null and void without jurisdiction, the same cannot be given effect to.

(3.) On the other hand, the learned counsel for the 1st respondent-decree holder submits that in the plaint in O.S. No. 87 of 2012, the 1st respondent clearly stated that the suit promissory note was executed at Kothagudem and in the para relating to cause of action also, it was clearly mentioned that the suit promissory note was executed at Kothagudem, which is not a scheduled area, and as such, the cause of action took place at Kothagudem and not at Lakshmidevipalli. He placed reliance on the same judgment contending that if cause of action arose in the schedule area, then only the civil court has no jurisdiction, but, in the present case, the cause of action arose at Kothagudem, and hence, the judgment has no application to the facts of the present case. He also placed reliance on Nagarjuna Grameena Bank and others v. Medi Narayana and others : 2012 (11) Scale 312 and Nalazala Srinivas Rao v. S. Lokeswara Rao, 2006 4 ALD 672 in support of his contention.