IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) THURSDAY, THE TWENTY NINTH DAY OF DECEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND ELEVEN PRESENT THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE VILAS V. AFZULPURKAR WRIT PETITION No.30603 of 2011 BETWEEN P. Ravi Kumar. ... PETITIONER AND Bharat Sanchar Nigam Limited, West Godavari District and two others. ...RESPONDENTS Counsel for the Petitioner: MR. N. SRIHARI Counsel for the Respondents: MS. P. SARADA SC FOR BSNL – R1 & R2 MR. MAHESWAR RAO KUNCHAM The Court made the following: ORDER: Petitioner, who is an employee of the first respondent, admittedly, has given a guarantee in favor of the third respondent with respect to the loan availed by one Smt. A. Latha W/o. Dhanraj. It appears that the said borrower committed defaults, which lead to the third respondent filing an arbitration case being ARC.No.63 of 2010 before the Arbitrator, Eluru and after securing the award on 14.05.2010; the third respondent put it to execution in E.P.No.143 of 2011 in ARC.No.63 of 2010 before the learned II Additional District Judge, Eluru, West Godavari District. In pursuance of the attachment order passed by the executing Court, the petitioner’s salary, in the capacity as a guarantor, was attached and the said attachment effected on 29.04.2011 appears to have continued for some time. Petitioner states that, thereafter, the entire claim of the third respondent/decree holder in the said EP was amicably settled and paid and the said decree holder filed a full satisfaction memo before the executing Court on 27.06.2011. 2. Petitioner has produced a copy of the certified copy of the docket proceeding of the executing Court, which reads that the decree holder filed F.S. (full satisfaction) memo; F.S. is recorded and attachment of judgment debtors 2 and 3 is raised. The judgment debtor No.2, referred to in the proceedings of the executing Court, as above, is the petitioner herein. 3. The grievance of the petitioner, therefore, is that in spite of full satisfaction memo having been filed by the decree holder, the attachment of petitioner’s salary is still continued and in spite of petitioner’s request, the second respondent has refused to take note of the full satisfaction memo and recording by the Court, as above, but, on the contrary, has issued proceedings dated 19.09.2011 informing the petitioner that no action can be taken for stopping the recovery until specific or separate order is received from the Court. Petitioner is, therefore, before this Court seeking direction against respondents 1 and 2. 4. Learned counsel for the third respondent confirms that the decree has fully been satisfied; EP is closed and the attachment is raised. The same is accordingly recorded in the docket proceedings of the executing Court, referred to above. 5. Learned standing counsel for respondents 1 and 2 states that because the communication received from the petitioner was not clear, the letter dated 19.09.2011 was issued by the second respondent. But, if any, attachment is already raised and EP is closed, there is no impediment for stopping the deductions of the attached amount from the petitioner’s salary. 6. In view of that, I deem it appropriate to permit the petitioner to file a neat and authenticated copy of the proceedings of the executing Court showing that full satisfaction is recorded on behalf of the decree holder and attachment ordered in the EP is raised. If such document along with a representation of the petitioner is filed, the respondents 1 and 2 shall verify the same and act accordingly. The writ petition is accordingly disposed of. There shall be no order as to costs. _____________________ VILAS V. AFZULPURKAR, J December 29, 2011 DSK