IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) TUESDAY, THE TWENTY SECOND DAY OF SEPTEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND NINE PRESENT THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE B.PRAKASH RAO and THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR WRIT PETITION NO : 14544 of 2009 Between: The A.P. State Financial Corporation Rep. by its Asst. General Manager Ranga Reddy (East) Branch, K. Ram Babu, S/o. Late K. Gunnaiah, Aged 49 years, R/o. Hyderabad. 5-9-194, Chirag Ali Lane, Abids, Hyderabad. ..... PETITIONER AND 1 The Chief Judge City Civil Court Hyderabad. 2 The I Addl. Senior Civil Judge Vijayawada. 3 M/s. Pavan Creams Pvt. Ltd. Rep. by its Promote Director, Alapati Padmanabham & Darshipudi Srinivas, A-2, Industrial Estate, Vijayawada-2. 4 Darsipudi Srinivas S/o. Late Suryanarayana Murthy D.No.40-15-9/1, Brundavan Colony, Labbipet, Vijayawada. 5 Alapati Padmanabham S/o. China Kutumba Rao R/o. A-2, Industrial Estate, Vijayawada-2. 6 M/s. Sam & Sam Architects Rep. by its Proprietor, Mr. Samuel V.D., S/o. V. George Office at : 14, 1st Floor, Abids, Shopping Centre, Opp. Hotel Emerald, Hyderabad - 1. 7 Ch. Sirisha W/o. Ch. Ramesh Rep.by her Special Power of Attorney Holder, Ch. Damodar Rao S/o. Bapanaiah, Aged 53 years, R/o. 11-11-8, Vatturi Vari Street, Vijayawada - 1. 8 Ch. Damodar Rao S/o. Bapanaiah R/o. 11-11-8, Vatturi Vari Street, Vijayawada - 1. 9 Kolla Narasimha Rao S/o. Venkateswara Rao C/o. M/s. Vasundhara Sumangali, M.G. Road, Kothagudem, Khammam District. 10 Kolla Udaya Lakshmi W/o. Narasimha Rao C/o. M/s. Vasundhara Sumangali, M.G. Road, Kothagudem, Khammam District. 11 Kolla Sravani D/o. Narasimha Rao C/o. M/s. Vasundhara Sumangali, M.G. Road, Kothagudem, Khammam District. 12 Kolla Sailesh S/o. Narasimha Rao Rep. by his Father, K. Narasimha Rao, Being his natural Guardian next friend, C/o. M/s. Vasundhara Sumangali, M.G. Road, Kothagudem, Khammam District. 13 ING Vysya Bank Ltd. Rep. by its Branch Manager 5-3-935-937, Nizamshahi Road, Siddiamber Bazar, Hyderabad. .....RESPONDENT(S) Petition under Article 226 of the constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the Affidavit filed herein the High Court will be pleased to issue a writ of Mandamus declaring that the petitioner is not liable as Garnishee to deposit to the credit of O.S.No. 599 of 2008 on the file of 1st Respondent and O.S.No. 1126/2008, 1131/2008, 1134/2008, 1135/2008, 1136/2008, 1137/2008, 1183/2008, 1185/2008 on the file of 2nd respondent more than Rs.63.25 lakhs (less expenses) belonging to the 3rd respondent and consequently direct Respondents 1 & 2 not to insist the petitioner to comply with the orders passed by them in O.S.No. 599/2008, 1126/2008, 1131/2008, 1134/2008, 1135/2008, 1136/2008, 1137/2008, 1183/2008, 1185/2008 regarding release of Rs.63.25 (less expenses) lakhs or part thereof belonging to 3rd respondent by permitting the petitioner to deposit Rs.63.25 lakhs belonging to the 3rd respondent in either the court of 1st respondent or 2nd respondentor with any authority/court as the Hon'ble High Court may deem it fit and proper. Counsel for the Petitioner:MR.M.S.RAMCHANDRA RAO Counsel for the Respondent No.: SMT.M.BHASKARA LAKSHMI (SC FOR APHC) The Court made the following : THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE B.PRAKASH RAO and THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR WRIT PETITION NO : 14544 of 2009 ORDER: (Per Sri Justice B Prakash Rao) Heard Sri M S Ramachandra Rao learned counsel for petitioner, Smt M Bhaskara Lakshmi, learned counsel for respondents 1 and 2. Though served none appeared for the sixth respondent. At their request, the writ petition is taken up for disposal. The petitioner herein is A P State Financial Corporation, filed this writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of Inida , in unusual circumstances seeks writ of mandamus with regard to certain orders passed by respondents 1 and 2 which are original Civil Courts, where certain proceedings have been initiated for recovery of amounts by respective parties and pending suits, certain garnishee orders have been passed separately. Having regard to the fact that more than one garnishee order has been passed by different Courts, the petitioner corporation felt difficulties in compliance of the said orders and to avoid violation of any such orders, filed the present writ petition seeking appropriate clarification and orders, so that due compliance can be made. Having heard the learned counsel appearing for the parties, there is no dispute in regard to the two set of parallel proceedings, where in one case decrees have been passed and another suit is at preliminary stage. The fact remains that garnishee orders have been passed, however, it is the case of the respondents herein that they have deposited much more amounts than the actual liability that can be fastened on the principal judgment debtor, therefore it is not necessary that any such amount over and above the decreed amount should be kept in the deposit. Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, appropriate orders have to be passed by respective Courts themselves in regard to the relief sought for by the parties as to withdrawal of the amounts, which have been deposited over and above the decreed amounts by filing appropriate applications. However, in view of the nature and scope of Article 226 of the Constitution of India, this Court would not go into all these aspects. On filing such applications, the same shall be considered in accordance with law and on its own merits. We make it clear that the question of depositing or giving any garnishee for any amount over and above the suit amount, is not proper and necessarily all such over and above the amounts are to be returned back to the respective garnishees, for which appropriate applications either by filing cheque petitions etc. Having regard to the fact that the petitioner has complied with the interim orders of this Court dated 23.7.2009, we make it clear that it is not necessary for the petitioner to make any further deposits and all the deposits made by the petitioner are subject to the orders to be passed by the respective Courts. It is also open for the petitioners to file necessary applications, keeping in view of the various proceedings and inconsistency arising and the same shall also be gone into by the said Courts on merits and in accordance with law. Subject to above, the writ petition is disposed of. No costs. _________________ B.PRAKASH RAO,J _______________ SANJAY KUMAR,J DATE: 22.9.2008 Tvk THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE B.PRAKASH RAO and THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR WRIT PETITION NO : 14544 of 2009 Date: 22.9.2008