THE HON’BLE Ms. JUSTICE G. ROHINI CIVIL REVISION PETITION No. 4199 OF 2011 Dated: 18.11.2011 Between : K.Padmavathi … Petitioner And K.Shanker Rao … Respondent The Court made the following:- THE HON’BLE Ms. JUSTICE G. ROHINI CIVIL REVISION PETITION No. 4199 OF 2011 ORDER: Heard the learned counsel for the revision petitioner. Despite notice, none appeared for the respondent. Revision petitioner is the 2nd defendant in O.S.No.1697 of 2006 on the file of the Court of II Additional Senior Civil Judge, Ranga Reddy District at L.B.Nagar, which was decreed ex parte. The 1st respondent herein/ decree holder filed E.P.No.12 of 2010 for realization of the decretal amount. On 04.07.2011, the Court below while issuing notice to the revision petitioner to show cause as to why the execution should not be granted, further ordered attachment of the salary and posted the matter to 28.10.2011. Aggrieved by the said order of attachment of salary, the present revision petition is filed. According to the revision petitioner, the suit summons were not served on her and she came to know about the decree only on receipt of the notice dated 04.07.2011 issued in Form-19 in E.P.No.12 of 2010 in O.S.No.1697 of 2006. It is stated that soon after coming to know about the ex parte decree, the revision petitioner filed an application for setting aside the ex parte decree and also for stay of the proceedings in E.P.No.12 of 2010 and the said applications are coming up on 25.11.2011. As could be seen from the material available on record, the suit was decreed on 19.06.2007 whereas E.P.No.12 of 2010 came to be filed in December, 2009 claiming interest from 23.06.2006 to 20.12.2009. Thus, it is clear that the E.P. was filed after two years from the date of decree. As provided under Order XXI Rule 22 of C.P.C., wherein an application for execution is made more than two years of the date of the decree, the executing Court shall issue a notice to the person against whom execution is applied for requiring him to show cause as to why the decree should not be executed against him. Since such notice is mandatory, as rightly submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner, the Court below ought not to have directed attachment of salary even before such notice is served on the revision petitioner/judgment debtor. Therefore, the order of attachment is liable to be set aside on that ground alone. Accordingly, the order of attachment dated 04.07.2011 made in E.P.No.12 of 2010 is hereby set aside and the revision petition is disposed of with a direction to the Court below to pass appropriate orders following due process of law after the show cause notice dated 04.07.2011 is served on the revision petitioner. No costs. ___________ G. ROHINI, J Date: 18.11.2011 Note: Issue CC in three days (B/o) Ivd