THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY WRIT PETITION NO.5549 OF 2010 Dated 10th March, 2010 Between: D.V.Narasimha Rao …Petitioner And The Andhra Bank and another …Respondents Counsel for the petitioner : Sri Venkateshwar Varanasi Counsel for the respondents: None appeared The Court made the following ORDER: This writ petition is filed for a Mandamus to declare the action of respondent No.2 in not allowing the petitioner to operate Savings Bank Account of the petitioner as illegal and arbitrary. The petitioner is an ex-employee of the respondents and also a Savings Bank Account holder with respondent No.2. The petitioner is defendant No.4 in O.S.No.5378 of 1999 filed by Sri Ram Chits Private Limited. By order dated 27.11.2009, the XI-Junior Civil Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad, before whom the above mentioned suit is pending, passed a garnishee order in respect of the account held by the petitioner in E.A.No.450 of 2009 in E.P.No.151 of 2009 directing the respondents to withhold the amount of Rs.1,84,048/- belonging to the petitioner. The said suit was decreed ex parte. However, the petitioner filed an application to set aside the said ex parte decree. While the said application is pending, at the instance of the petitioner, the civil Court granted stay of all further proceedings in E.P.No.151 of 2009. The petitioner filed this writ petition feeling aggrieved by the action of the respondents in not permitting him to operate the account. I have heard Sri Venkateshwar Varanasi, learned counsel for the petitioner, and perused the record. The facts referred to above reveal that a garnishee order was passed and an ex parte decree was also passed against the petitioner and that an application for setting aside the ex parte decree has been pending. The learned counsel for the petitioner contended that in view of stay of all further proceedings in the E.P granted by the civil Court, the petitioner is entitled to operate the account. I am afraid, I cannot accept this contention. A garnishee order continues to exist until the same is set aside by the competent Court. An order staying the E.P proceedings in the suit in which garnishee order is passed will not have the effect of obliterating the garnishee order. At the most, the decree holder will not be able to execute the decree on account of grant of stay of E.P proceedings. Therefore, the very premise on which the petitioner filed this writ petition is erroneous. In the face of existence of garnishee order, the petitioner cannot be permitted to operate his bank account. If the petitioner felt aggrieved by the garnishee order, he is entitled to approach the civil Court and seek appropriate orders. Subject to the above observations, the writ petition is dismissed. As a sequel to dismissal of main petition, WPMP No.7127 of 2010 filed by the petitioner for interim relief is disposed of as infructuous. C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY, J Dated 10th March, 2010 vrn