THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE VILAS V. AFZULPURKAR CRP NO. 3185 OF 2007 Date of Judgment: 7.6.2011 Between: Usirikayala Venkata Ramana …Petitioner and B.B. Pulla Naik ..Respondent THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE VILAS V. AFZULPURKAR C.R.P. NO. 3185 OF 2007 ORDER: The petitioner is the decree holder. He had moved an application-EP No. 618 of 2006 in OS No. 734 of 2005 before the Principal Junior Civil Judge, Nandyal. In that execution petition, he had obtained an order of attachment of salary of the respondent/J.Dr. However, when the attachment was sought to be effected, the respondent in EP appeared and stated before the executing court that his father’s name is different from the father’s name of the judgment debtor as shown in the decree. He also denied that he had borrowed any amounts from the petitioner. The executing court, on such representation, came to the conclusion that the attachment of salary of the respondent was not justified, as he is not the judgment debtor and dismissed the EP. Questioning that, the present revision petition is filed. Heard both the learned counsel. It is contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner that there is no dispute about the identity of judgment debtor and even if any mistake in showing the father’s name is ignored, the employment number and other details of the judgment debtor are already available in the plaint as well as in the decree. The learned counsel, however, submits that the executing court has straightaway dismissed the EP without making any enquiry. The learned counsel for the respondent, on the other hand, submits that the plaint as well as the decree and consequential EP, all of them, contain the name of the judgment debtor as son of ‘B. Martha Naik’, whereas the name of the respondent’s father is ‘Billavat Mantri Naik’ and therefore the executing court was justified in dismissing the EP. I have seen the original decree as well as EP from the records. In the plaint as well as in the decree the cause title shows the name of judgment debtor’s father as ‘B. Martha Naik’, but there are other descriptions also such as the judgment debtor being railway employee as Gang Maistry and his employment number is also shown. However, the petitioner’s counsel is right in contending that the executing court should have made enquiry and given opportunity to the petitioner to establish that the respondent is the same judgment debtor, though there is some discrepancy with respect to the father’s name, instead, the executing court has straightaway dismissed the EP resulting in the petitioner being rendered remediless. In the circumstances, the impugned order deserves to be set aside and the execution petition is required to be remitted for fresh consideration. The learned counsel for the respondent, however, submits that the respondent was 54 years as on the date of suit and even if he was an employee of railways, he must have retired long back and in which case the question of attachment of his salary does not arise. The executing court shall look into that aspect in the event of it’s coming to a conclusion that there is no dispute as to identity. The revision petition is allowed, the impugned order is set aside. The executing court shall enquire into the matter as to whether the respondent/judgment debtor can be proceeded against and pass a fresh order after giving adequate opportunity to the petitioner as well as the respondent, within three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. No costs. The record be transmitted to the executing court immediately. _________________________ VILAS V. AFZULPURKAR, J Dt. 7.6.2011 KR