HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE GHULAM MOHAMMED CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO. 1126 OF 2011 ORDER : This Civil Revision Petition has been filed aggrieved by the Order dated 18.01.2011 passed in E.A.No. 541 of 2010 in E.P.No. 122 of 2010; in O.S.No. 68 of 2009 by the Principal Junior Civil Judge, Bapatla. Petitioner herein is the decree holder, who filed E.A.No. 541 of 2010 in E.P.No. 122 of 2010 under Order 21 Rule 46(a) of CPC, seeking to issue notice to the Garnishee viz., The Manager, APSRTC Bapatla Depot-second resonant herein, to show cause why he has not sent the amount attached by the Court. That application was dismissed observing as under: “In the present case in hands, in E.P.No. 28/2009 the Hon’ble Senior Civil Judge Court, Bapatla has ordered attachment for a sum of Rs. 1,05,505/- on the earned leave salary of the J.Dr. As the Hon’ble Senior Civil Judge Court, being the Court of highest grade among the Courts, that have ordered attachment of the leave salary of the J.Dr, the amount shall be received by that Court and all the claims and objections to the property attached shall also be determined by that Court only. In view of this legal position, this Court cannot direct the Garnishee to send the attached amount to this Court.” The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the Court below erroneously dismissed the petition without considering the fact that the amount of Rs. 73,386/- was attached in I.A.No. 509 of 2009 in O.S.No. 68 of 2009 dated 15.4.2009 and the Garnishee-second respondent herein directed not to make any payment of leave salary and other benefits of first respondent herein. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and also perused the material made available on record. As seen from the record, the petitioner herein filed a petition under Order 21 Rule 46 (a) of CPC to issue notice to the Garnishee to show cause why he has not sent the amount attached by the Court. As per the explanation given by the Garnishee there are four attachments on the leave salary and encashment amount of the J.Dr. Out of them, two attachments were ordered by the Court below. Be that as it may, Section 63 of CPC provides the procedure to be followed by the Court when the same property is attached in execution of decrees of several Courts, which is extracted here under: “63. Property attached in execution of decrees of several Courts: (1) Where property not in the custody of any Court is under attachment in execution of decrees of more Courts than one, the Court which shall receive or realize such property and shall determine any claim thereto and any objection to the attachment thereof shall be the Court of highest grade, or, where there is no difference in grade between such Courts, the Court under whose decree the property was first attached. (2) Nothing in this section shall be deemed to invalidate any proceeding taken by a Court executing one of such decrees. (Explanation: For the purpose of sub-section (2), ‘proceeding taken by a Court’ does not include an order allowing, to a decree holder who has purchased property at a sale held in execution of a decree, set off to the extent of the purchase price payable by him)” In view of the above rule position, the Court below viz., Principal Junior Civil Judge, Bapatla cannot direct the Garnishee to send the attached amount, as the Senior Civil Judge’s Court, being the Court of highest among the Courts have ordered attachment of the leave salary of the J.Dr, the amount shall be received by that Court and all the claims and objections to the property attached shall also be determined by that Court only. Therefore, the Court below rightly dismissed the application filed and I see no reasons to interfere with the order passed by the Court below and the Civil Revision Petition is liable to be dismissed. Accordingly, the Civil Revision Petition is dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. ______________________ GHULAM MOHAMMED, J DATE: 01.04.2011 KA