IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) FRIDAY, THE NINTH DAY OF OCTOBER TWO THOUSAND AND NINE PRESENT THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE G.V.SEETHAPATHY CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO.4364 OF 2009. Between:- Nagubilli Babu Rao and others ..Petitioners/JDRs/Defendants And Shriram Chits Private Limited, rep.by its Senior Manager, S kota, Vizianagaram. .. Respondent/DHR/Plaintiff ORDER:- This Civil Revision petition is directed against the order dated 28.11.2008 passed in E.P.No.223 of 2008 in O.S.No.43 of 2007 on the file of the learned Junior Civil Judge, S Kota, Vizianagaram District, wherein the attachment was effected and E.P. was closed. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners/JDRs and respondent/DHR. Perused the records. It is not disputed that the petitioners are the JDRs in O.S.No.43 of 2007. The suit was filed by the respondent for recovery of amount due and a decree was passed for a sum of Rs.1,05,796/-. The respondent/DHR sought to execute the decree for attachment of salary of the petitioners/JDRs under Or.21 Rule 48 C.P.C. through the garnishee. It is not disputed that the attachment was effected and thereafter, E.P. was also closed. The learned counsel for the respondent/DHR (petitioners) submits that no notice was ordered and it was not served on JDRs1 to 3 but the Court below proceeded with the matter and passed the impugned order. It is to be noted that the E.P. was filed within two years from the date of passing the decree and no notice is in fact required to be issued. The Court below, however, ordered notice to JDRs.1 to 3. Simultaneously, warrants of attachment of salary were also issued and the warrants were served on the garnishee and attachment was effected. When once the attachment was effected by service of the warrant on the garnishee, there was nothing more to be done by keeping the E.P. pending and hence, the E.P. was closed. Admittedly, JDRs have not filed any application for raising of the attachment. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the petitioners/JDRs submit that in pursuance of the said attachment, deductions from the salary were made for a period of three months by now. Simply because the E.P. was closed though notices of JDRs.1 to 3 were not served, the impugned order does not suffer from any illegality, in asmuchas no notice is in fact required to be issued and ordering of such notice in the present case was superfluous and further, once the attachment was effected, there was no purpose in keeping the E.P. pending. In these circumstances, it is held that closing the E.P. duly noting that the attachment was effected does not call for interference. The Civil Revision Petition is dismissed. It is however made clear that the attachment effected shall conform to the provisions of Section 60 C.P.C. and it is open to the JDRs to seek appropriate relief in the event of the attachment not being in conformity with the provisions of Section 60 C.P.C. _______________________ G.V.SEETHAPATHY, J 09th October, 2009 AMD