IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD PRESENT THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE N.R.L.NAGESWARA RAO C.R.P.NO.4500 OF 2010 Date:28-01-2011 Between:- Kandikatla Naresh Kumar ..Petitioner/JDR No.5 And Shriram Capital Finance & Chits (SCFC), Kothagudem, rep.by its Managing Partner M.Raghu Rama Rao and others .. Respondents ORDER:- The Revision is filed against the order in E.P.No.14 of 2010 in O.S.No.332 of 2006 on the file of the Principal Senior Civil Judge, Kothagudem. The revision petitioner is the fifth judgment debtor. A decree was obtained by the Chit Fund Company against judgment debtors 1 to 5 and in execution of the decree, earlier, E.P.No.308 of 2009 was filed against all the judgment debtors and a sum of Rs.2,23,265/- is said to have been realized from all the judgment debtors and the second judgment debtor is said to have retired from service. The present execution petition is filed for attachment of the salary arrears of the revision petitioner in the hands of the garnishee on the ground that he received some arrears as per the NCWA-VIII Wage Board. The present execution petition was filed for simultaneous attachment of the said amount, which is in the hands of the employer. The revision petitioner has raised an objection stating that the second execution petition for attachment of the salary is not maintainable since already there is attachment of the salary and money is being recovered. Therefore, the petition is liable to be dismissed. The lower Court did not accept the contention of the revision petitioner herein and ordered the attachment. The point for consideration is whether the order of the lower Court is legal and justifiable? POINT:- Evidently, as can be seen from the order of the lower Court and also the contents in the Execution Petition, a substantial sum of Rs.2,23,265/- was realized by deduction of the salary of judgment debtors 1, 3 to 6 for a period of 24 months. Therefore, it is not a case where the decree is not being realized or not capable of being executed for realization of the amounts due. Evidently, the arrears, if any, received by the petitioner herein is only a part of the salary and it is not a different amount from the salary. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that he has got still twelve years of service and the attachment to a tune of Rs.1,860/- per month is continuing and is in force. Apart from it, the attachments of some of the other judgment debtors is also continuing except the second judgment debtor. Even otherwise if the amounts from the other judgment debtors cannot be realized, the recovery of Rs.50,000/- and odd is not a difficult thing from the salary of the 5th judgment debtor, who is the petitioner herein. Therefore, the simultaneous execution sought by the decree holder is not for a different mode of execution but only for the salary, which is only received as part of the service benefits to the revision petitioner as when the conduct of the judgment debtor is bonafide and the decree is being satisfied without being any obstruction of any nature, the attachment of the arrears received by the judgment debtor works hardship and it will be a deviating from the attachment of the salary already granted. Therefore, in the interest of justice, the order of the lower Court in attaching the amount realized as arrears of NCWA-VIII Wage Board amount is not sustainable and the revision petitioner will be entitled to receive the amount. However, the attachment originally granted on the salary of the revision petitioner shall continue till the realisation of the decretal amount. With the above observation, the Civil Revision Petition is allowed. No costs. ____​________________________ N.R.L.NAGESWARA RAO, J 28th January, 2011 AMD