THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE V.V.S.RAO CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.3266 of 2011 (CRP SR No.8825 of 2010) August 05, 2011 Between: Saketi Satyamnaidu, S/o.Naramnaidu ... Petitioner And Moora Jnana Jyothi, D/o.Venkataratnam ...Respondent THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE V.V.S.RAO CIVIL REVISION PETITION (SR) No.8825 of 2010 ORDER: The petitioner is Decree Holder (D.Hr). He obtained decree in O.S.No.169 of 2006 for an amount of Rs.1,47,477/- against the respondent-Judgment Debtor (J.Dr). He filed E.P.No.114 of 2007 under Order XXI Rule 46 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (CPC) for attachment of salary of J.Dr. The salary was attached and the attachment was made absolute. The petitioner then filed another execution petition being E.P. No.306 of 2008 to attach the amount belonging to the J.Dr lying in her Savings Bank (SB) account of State Bank of India, Peddapuram Branch. This was also allowed and it was also made absolute. The D.Hr filed cheque petition in E.A. No.321 of 2009 praying the executing Court for issue of cheque for Rs.1,47,477/- . Relying on the decision of the Supreme Court in Radhe Shyam Gupta v Punjab National Bank[1], the application was dismissed. Thereafter, the petitioner moved E.A. No.1256 of 2009 to summon the Branch Manager, State Bank of India, Peddapuram Branch to produce relevant SB account or any other savings account of the J.Dr. The trial Court dismissed the application on 08.12.2009, aggrieved by which the present civil revision petition is filed. The Counsel for the petitioner submits that during the pendency of the execution application, the J.Dr has withdrawn the amount from the bank and, therefore, the exemption under Section 60(1) of CPC is not available to him. He also submits that when the retirement benefits are parked in fixed deposit, the ratio in Radhey Shyam Gupta has no application. There is no dispute that the two execution petitions filed by the petitioner for attachment of the amount in the bank were accepted and the attachments were made absolute. There is also no dispute that the petition filed for withdrawing the amount in the J.Dr’s account was dismissed relying on the decision of the Supreme Court in Radhey Shyam Gupta, wherein it was laid down that the retrial benefits of J.Dr cannot be attached in execution of a decree. Then the question that would arise for consideration is whether the D.Hr could summon the Branch Manager for producing the other accounts of the J.Dr? In all probability, the J.Dr had no other account except the SB account which was attached by the D.Hr earlier. If only the J.Dr had any other account, the D.Hr would have certainly attached the same. Therefore, no purpose would be served by summoning the Branch Manager especially when the petition for withdrawing the amount was dismissed by the Court below. The civil revision petition is devoid of any merit and is accordingly dismissed. _________________ (V.V.S. RAO, J) August 05, 2011 YS [1] (2009) 1 SCC 376 : AIR 2009 SC 930 : 2009(1) ALD 79 (SC)