IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) PRESENT HON'BLE MR JUSTICE C. V. RAMULU CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO. 4279 OF 2009 Between: M/s Apad Bhandhu Chits P. Ltd represented by its Branch Manager M. Umamahesh. .....petitioner AND M/s Chalapathi Chit Fund Pvt Ltd and one another .....RESPONDENTS ORDER: This Civil Revision Petition under Section 115 of CPC, is directed against an order made in E.A.No. 81 of 2007 in E.P.No. 254 of 2005 in O.S.No. 149 of 2002 dated 30.7.2009 on the file of Principal Senior Civil Judge, Nellore , whereunder an application filed by the decree holder requesting the Court to send for the amount of Rs. 1,30,000/- from the garnishee, the petitioner herein and deposit the same to the credit of the suit O.S.No. 149 of 2002, was ordered as prayed for. The petitioner is a garnishee of the JDR i.e ., second respondent. The first respondent is the decree holder. He filed suit in O.S.No. 149 of 2002 for recovery of money. After full trial, the said suit was decreed and EP No. 254 of 2005 was filed seeking to attach the amount lying with the petitioner – garnishee, which was attached initially and thereafter, the same was made absolute and finally the present application E.A.No. 81 of 2007 was filed to direct the garnishee, the petitioner herein to deposit an amount of Rs. 1,30,000/-to the credit of the suit in O.S.No. 149 of 2002. The petitioner filed objections stating that the judgment debtor is the guarantor to one P. Vasundhara, who is the prized subscriber in respect of chit transaction ST1F/14, the chit value being Rs. 3,00,000/-. The said P. Vasundhara paid 10 instalments and committed default in respect of 11 to 14 instalments as on the date of filing of the petition. By virtue of the agreement of guarantee, the garnishee company is entitled to appropriate the amounts paid by him towards the arrears due and payable by P. Vasundhara. Further as per Clause-6 of agreement of guarantee, the garnishee company is entitled to recover all of its dues from the guarantor’s person or property upon default in payment by the prized subscriber and to take any legal action in respect of any amount retained by the prized subscriber or guarantors. Further, under Clauses 8 and 9 the garnishee company is entitled to withhold the amounts payable to the guarantor, and in these circumstances, the decree-holder is not entitled for withholding the amount of Rs. 1,30,000/- lying with the petitioner-company. After a detailed consideration of the objections raised by the petitioner herein, the Court below found that the objection of the garnishee is not tenable since no objection was raised by the garnishee company when attachment was effected by way of pro order on 31.12.2005 in E.P.No. 254 of 2005. Now, the garnishee company is estopped in raising objection to send the amount to the court in view of the attachment effected by the court in E.P. No. 254 of 2005 and in view of the orders passed in E.P dated 27.9.2006, the attachment is made absolute and therefore, the garnishee company now cannot refuse to send the amount to the credit of EP and application was dismissed. Learned counsel for the petitioner strenuously contended that once the JDR was stood as guarantor to one of the prized subscriber who fell in arrears and suit has been filed for recovery of the amount , in the event of the suit being decreed, it is difficult for him to recover the amount if the amount lying to the credit of JDR is deposited to credit of the present suit. It may be necessary to notice from the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the petitioner that first attachment was made and thereafter it was made absolute and the petitioner did not care to file any Civil Revision Petition before this court questioning the same and now comes up with the plea that the suit has been fled by him. It is seen that the suit filed by the petitioner against the said P. Vasundhara and the JDR and others herein was subsequent to the making of the attachment order absolute. Under those circumstances, the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the petitioner cannot be countenanced. I am of the opinion that this petition is filed only to help the JDR and to deny the decree holder, his due amount as per the decree. The Civil Revision Petition is devoid of any merit and is liable to be dismissed accordingly dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. ___________________ C. V. RAMULU,J DATE: 11.11.2009. KA .... REGISTRAR // TRUE COPY // SECTION OFFICER To 1. 2 CD copies