*THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE L.NARASIMHA REDDY +Civil Revision Petition No.5591 of 2011 % Dated 29.11.2011 # Veeragandam Venkateswarlu. ….Petitioner $ Nerella Veeraswamy. ….Respondent ! Counsel for the petitioner : Sri M.Sudhir Kumar ^ Counsel for the respondent : Sri M.V.S.Suresh Kumar < GIST: > HEAD NOTE: ? Cases referred: THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE L.NARASIMHA REDDY CRP.No.5591 of 2011 ORDER: It was not without reason that an adage got currency to the effect that the troubles of a plaintiff in a suit start after the decree is passed in his favour. The petitioner filed O.S.No.397 of 1996 in the Court of I Additional Junior Civil Judge, Ongole against the respondent for recovery of amount, on the basis of a promissory note. The suit was decreed long back and after the decree became final, the petitioner filed E.P.No.315 of 2003 for execution of the decree, dated 17.01.1997. The respondent held shares in M/s.NFC. An order of attachment was passed on 03.03.2006 and the attachment was made absolute on 26.02.2007. The petitioner filed E.A.No.1407 of 2007 with a prayer to send for about 2000 shares of NFC for being sold for recovery of the suit amount. At one stage, the trial Court passed an order directing the garnishee to sell the shares. On 07.02.2008, the garnishee addressed a letter stating that the share certificates are with the respondent and unless they are deposited, the sale cannot be effected. In view of this development, the petitioner filed E.A.No.738 of 2008 with a prayer to direct the respondent to produce the attached share certificates. The application was opposed by the respondent by raising some technical grounds. The executing Court dismissed E.A.No.738 of 2008 as infructuous, in view of the orders passed in E.A.No.1407 of 2007. The petitioner challenges the said order. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned counsel for the respondent. It is a matter of record that the shares held by the respondent in M/s.NFC were attached. The next step is to cause sale of shares. The garnishee i.e., company, in which the respondent had shares, expressed its inability to sell the shares, unless the share certificates are deposited. As a matter of fact, the executing Court ought to have taken those steps in E.A.No.1407 of 2007 itself. Atleast when the petitioner filed E.A.No.738 of 2008, it ought to have directed the respondent to produce the share certificates. The record discloses that on 08.06.2009, the executing Court allowed E.A.No.738 of 2008, but adjourned the matter to 29.06.2009 for production of shares. Instead of ensuring compliance, the executing Court had searched for a shortcut and on 16.06.2010, it has dismissed E.A. No.1407 of 2007; and on that basis, it dismissed E.A.No.738 of 2008. The approach of the executing Court is totally objectionable and this Court takes serious exception to the casual and callous manner, in which the matter was dealt with. It is on account of such attitude that the efficacy of the system is suffering a dent. Therefore, the civil revision petition is allowed and the order under revision is set aside. The executing Court is directed to ensure that the respondent deposits the share certificates as directed by it on 08.06.2009, without any further delay. Any complacency in this regard shall be treated as an instance of incompetence on the part of the executing Court. There shall be no order as to costs. __________ 29.11.2011 Note: L.R.Copy to be marked. (B/o) JSU THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE L.NARASIMHA REDDY CRP.No.5591 of 2011 Date: 29.11.2011 JSU