IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF ANDHRA PRADESH : HYDERABAD TUESDAY, THE FIRST DAY (1ST) of MARCH, TWO THOUSAND AND ELEVEN Present: THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G.V.SEETHAPATHY Civil Revision Petition No.3020 of 2008 Between: The Branch Manager, State Bank of India Vuyyuru, Krishna district … Petitioner And: Yandapalli veera Venkata Satyanarayana & another ….Respondents THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G.V.SEETHAPATHY Civil Revision Petition No.3020 of 2008 ORDER: This revision petition is directed against the order dated 24.06.2008 in EA No.535 of 2004 in EP No.389 of 2002 in OS No.820 of 2001 on the file of the I Additional Junior Civil Judge, Kovvur, wherein the said application filed by the first respondent herein/decree-holder, was allowed, directing attachment of the salary of the Garnishee. 2. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned counsel for the first respondent. Perused the record. 3. The first respondent herein obtained a decree against the 2nd respondent for recovery of certain amount due. The first respondent filed EP No.389 of 2002 and sought attachment of the salary of 2nd respondent in the hands of the petitioner herein- Garnishee. Subsequently, the decree-holder filed EA No.535 of 2004 under Order XX! Rule 46-B CPC for taking action against the Garnishee for not complying with the orders of the Court. By impugned order, the execution Court directed the attachment of the salary of the Garnishee, holding that the Garnishee is liable to pay the decretal amount. Aggrieved by the same, the Garnishee bank filed the present revision. 4. The E.P. amount is stated to be Rs.32,167/- payable by the 2nd respondent-JDr. As the JDr was working in Vuyyuru branch of State Bank of India, the decree-holder sought the attachment of salary of the JDr by issuing notice to the Garnishee. According to the petitioner, the JDr was not regularly attending to the duty and he was unauthorisedly absent during several spells and whatever amount was payable to the JDr by the bank towards salary was duly remitted to the Court in pursuance of the garnishee notice and the failure to remit the balance amount was only on account of non-payment of the salary to the JDr owing to his unauthorized absence. 5. It is to be noted that the petitioner is only a Garnishee, but not a guarantor. The Garnishee is liable to remit such amount in response to the orders of the attachment, as he is due and payable to the JDr. When the JDr absconded and unauthorisedly abstained from duty and therefore, no salary became payable to the JDr for the said period of unauthorized absence, the question of the petitioner-garnishee remitting the amount of salary pertaining to those periods does not simply arise. The execution Court directed the Garnishee to pay the balance amount because the garnishee did not return the warrant of attachment and allowed attachment was made absolute. It is to be noted that the petitioner- Garnishee is not a party to the execution proceedings. There was no occasion or opportunity to the petitioner to file any counter. The warrant of attachment was honoured by the petitioner-Garnishee by remitting those amounts, which became payable to the JDr. Simply because the attachment is made absolute, the Garnishee cannot be directed to pay the balance amount, when the said amount did not become payable to the JDr. In fact, warrant of attachment would subsist only for a period of 24 months. But it appears that with a view to see that the decree debt is clear to the extent possible, the petitioner-Garnishee continue to remit the amounts even beyond the period of 24 months. It cannot therefore be said that there has been any intentional or deliberate violation or disobedience on the part of the petitioner-Garnishee, simply because, they failed to inform the Court that the JDr was absconding. According to the petitioner, the JDr was attending to the duty intermittently and therefore they could not report to the Court that he was absconding. 6. Learned counsel for the first respondent would contend that the revision petition is not maintainable and any Order XXI Rule 46-B or 46-C or 46-E is appealable as a decree under Order XXI Rule 46-B. 7. Order XXI Rule 46-B States that ‘where the garnishee does not forthwith pay into Court the amount due from him to the JDr or so much thereof as is sufficient to satisfy the decree and the costs of execution, and does not appear and show cause in answer to the notice, the Court may order the garnishee to comply with the terms of such notice, and on such order, execution may issue as though such order were a decree against him’. Rule 46-C states that ‘where the garnishee disputes liability, the Court may order that any issue or question necessary for the determination of liability shall be tried as if it were an issue in a suit, and upon the determination of such issue shall make such order or orders as it deems fit.’ 8. In response to the notice under Order XXI Rule 46-B CPC, the petitioner Garnishee has disputed their liability stating that the JDr was abstaining from duty and whatever amount that became payable to the JDr for the period he worked was already remitted to the Court and the question of remittance of the salary for the period of unauthorized absence did not arise, as the same did not become due or payable to the JDr. When such a dispute is raised by the Garnishee over the liability under Order XXI Rule 46- C CPC, the Court shall decide the same as if it were an issue in the suit and pass orders only upon such determination. When such an order is passed in accordance with rule 46-C after due determination on the question of liability, the said order becomes appealable under Rule 46-B. 9. In the present case, no such enquiry was conducted and no determination of liability was made and the impugned order passed by the execution Court is not in compliance with the procedure prescribed by the statute. Such an order which is not in conformity with the procedure prescribed and on the other hand is violative of the procedure prescribed is wholly unsustainable and cannot be construed to be an order passed under Rule 46-C. The impugned order is vitiated on account of failure to exercise jurisdiction under Rule 46-C and is therefore amenable to the revisional jurisdiction of this Court, the contention of the learned counsel for the first respondent over the maintainability of the revision petition is untenable. In the circumstances, the impugned order is set aside. 10. In the result, the civil revision petition is allowed. No order as to costs. __________________ G.V.SEETHAPATHY, J Date: 01.03.2011 bss