THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K.G.SHANKAR CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.6094 of 2010 Date:23.12.2011 Between: Dappu Yadaiah ..... Petitioner. AND M/s.Model Chit Corp.Limited, having its office at II Floor, Model House, Panjagutta, Hyderabad having branch at Vanastalipuram, Hyderabad rep by its Asst.Manager A. Narayana Murthy. .....Respondent. The Court made the following: THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K.G.SHANKAR CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.6094 of 2010 ORDER: One Dappu Yadaiah assails the warrant issued in E.P.No.4 of 2010 on the file of the Senior Civil Judge, Sanga Reddy. A suit in O.S.No.1261 of 2005 was filed by the 1st respondent-Decree-Holder that the 2nd respondent entered into a chit agreement with the 1st respondent and that the petitioner herein and others were sureties for the chit. Defendants remained ex parte in the suit. A n ex parte decree was passed. Later, it would appear that the Decree-Holder initially laid E.P.No.34 of 2009 but allowed it to be dismissed for default. Subsequently, E.P.No.4 of 2010 was laid against defendant No.4. A warrant was issued under Order 21 Rule 48 to the garnishee to attach the salary of defendant No.4. The salary of the petitioner accordingly was attached. The petitioner contends that he is not defendant No.4, that he never stood as guarantor and that his salary could not be attached. 2. Sri M. Adam, learned counsel for the petitioner/Judgment-Debtor submitted that he is not defendant No.4. There is any amount of confusion regarding the name of defendant No.4 as well as regarding his father’s name in this case. In the suit, defendant No.4 was described as D. Yadaiah/Yagaiah, S/o.Vengaiah. The calling of the defendant No.4 was shown as Technician, Grade-I in BHEL. The Execution Petition described the defendant No.4 as in the suit. Added to it, the staff number of defendant No.4 was mentioned as 1837206. Warrant accordingly was issued. In the warrant, the father’s name of defendant No.4 was shown as K. Nagaraju. Sri G. Vasantha Rayudu, learned counsel for the Decree-Holder submitted that the warrant unfortunately incorrectly described the father’s name of defendant No.4 and that the warrant can be correlated to Staff No.1837206, Grade-I, BHEL. 3. In the postal acknowledgement of the suit notice, the surname of the defendant No.4 was shown as Dasaiah. The petitioner herein claims that his surname is Dappu. Thus, the petitioner claims that he is Dappu Yadaiah S/o.Pochaiah. He further claims that he was an artisan by the date of the suit and was not a Technician. The petitioner contends that 1837206 is the staff number of the petitioner and that where he did not stand as surety to the suit transaction, the Decree-Holder has been attempting to execute the decree against the petitioner. 4. From the copy of the identity card produced by the petitioner, it is evident that the petitioner is Yadaiah and his Staff Number is 1837206. He would appear to be a Technician, Grade-I as on today. The Ration Card of the petitioner shows that the petitioner is Dappu Yadaiah S/o. Pochaiah. The claim of the petitioner regarding his identity therefore is very clear. The petitioner is Dappu Yadaiah S/o. Pochaiah. 5. Defendant No.4 is D. Yadaiah S/o.Vengaiah. I am afraid that the Decree-Holder cannot execute the decree if the petitioner is not the Judgment-Debtor. 6. The learned counsel for the petitioner/Decree- Holder, however, contended that the petitioner indeed is defendant No.4 and that he indeed was one of the guarantors for the suit transaction. He, however, fairly conceded that the decree could be executed against the petitioner if the petitioner was defendant No.4 and not other wise. 7. In view of the proof submitted by the petitioner that he is Dappu Yadaiah S/o.Pochaiah and that he is a Technician bearing Staff No.1837206, Grade-1, BHEL, the Decree-Holder cannot proceed against him till the Decree-Holder establishes that the petitioner is the 4th defendant. This revision consequently is allowed. The warrant issued regarding the attachment of the salary of the petitioner is set aside. The Decree-Holder is at liberty to establish in the Execution Petition that the petitioner is indeed defendant No.4. In such an event, the Decree-Holder would certainly be entitled to execute the decree against the petitioner. It is made clear that the warrant issued against the salary of the petitioner alone is set aside through orders in this petition. No costs. _________________________ JUSTICE K.G. SHANKAR Date:23.12.2011. mrb