IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) FRIDAY, THE THIRD DAY OF SEPTEMBER, TWO THOUSAND TEN PRESENT: THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.2853 of 2010 Between: M. Narasimha Rao … Petitioner And Sri Umamaheswara Finance Pvt., Ltd., Kurnool. … Respondent Counsel for the petitioners: Sri K. Maheswara Rao This Court made the following: THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.2853 of 2010 ORDER:- This civil revision petition is filed against order dated 03.04.2010 in C.F.R.No.3334 of 2010 in E.A.No.756 of 2009 in E.P.No.385 of 2007 in O.S.No.651 of 2005 on the file of the learned Principal Junior Civil Judge, Kurnool. The petitioner is the judgment debtor. The respondent obtained decree in O.S.No.651 of 2005 and in execution thereof, he filed E.P.No.385 of 2007 for attachment of the petitioner’s salary. In pursuance of the order passed in the said E.P., an order was passed directing reduction of salary and transmission of the same to the credit of the executing Court. The petitioner filed E.A.No.756 of 2009 for raising attachment on the ground that attachment beyond 48 months, as prescribed in Section 60 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (for short, “the Code”) is illegal. The Court below, by order dated 22.02.2010, allowed the said application by holding that the attachment shall not be continued, as the outer limit of 48 months prescribed in Section 60 has expired. The petitioner has later filed an application (C.F.R.No.3334 of 2010) for permission to withdraw the excess amount to a tune of Rs.80,000/-. The Court below, by the impugned order, has dismissed the said application, against which the petitioner filed the present revision petition. At the hearing, Sri K. Maheswara Rao, learned counsel for the petitioner, submitted that as the attachment in excess of 48 months is contrary to the provisions of Section 60 of the Code, the Court below committed a serious error in rejecting the petitioner’s application for permission to withdraw the excess amount. Having carefully considered this submission of the learned counsel, I am of the view that the petitioner is not entitled to this relief for more reasons than one. Firstly, as observed by the Court below, the petitioner has not sought for the relief claimed in C.F.R.No.3334 of 2010 when he filed E.A.No.756 of 2009. As noted above, in E.A.No.756 of 2009 the petitioner has merely prayed for raising of the attachment without asking for permission to withdraw the amount recovered in excess of the limit specified in Section 60 of the Code and secondly that he being the judgment debtor under the decree, which has become final, is liable to pay the decreetal amount. It is not the pleaded case of the petitioner that the attachment amount is in excess of his liability under the decree. Therefore, even if attachment was made without adhering to the limit contained in Section 60, the petitioner is not entitled to insist that he should be permitted to withdraw the said amount lying to the credit of the E.P., more so when no such specific provision is envisaged in the Code mandating return of the money, if recovered in excess of the limit. For the abovementioned reasons, the civil revision petition is dismissed. As a sequel to dismissal of the revision petition, CRPMP.No.3816 of 2010 filed by the petitioner for early hearing is also dismissed. _____________________________ C.V. NAGARJUNA REDDY, J Date: 03.09.2010 ES