THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V.RAMULU C.R.P.No.4438 of 2009 ORAL ORDER: This Civil Revision Petition is filed questioning the order dated 3.9.2009 made in E.P.No.149 of 2008 in O.S.No.10 of 1997 on the file of the learned Principal Senior Civil Judge, Nellore. Petitioner is judgment debtor and respondent is decree holder. It appears, respondent filed suit in O.S.No.10 of 1997 for recovery of money, which was decreed and attained finality. Thereafter, respondent filed the present E.P. under Order XXI Rules 54 and 66 48 of CPC seeking to attach the schedule mentioned property and sell the schedule property in the court auction and credit the realized proceeds to the credit of E.P. The said application was resisted by the petitioner denying the allegations made by the respondent-decree holder and stated that the decree holder already filed E.P.No.123 of 2002 for attachment of Government assigned house site and the said E.P. is pending; the decree holder also filed E.P.No.97 of 2007 for attachment of salary and the same is pending for enquiry; the decree holder filed another E.P.No.135 of 2008 for attachment of leave salary and the same is also pending; and thereafter the decree holder filed the present E.P. for attachment of schedule mentioned property which was purchased by petitioner after obtaining loan from ICICI Bank, Nellore and the said Bank has got first charge and lien over the property. After elaborate consideration of the matter, the Executing Court allowed the said E.P. vide order dated 3.9.2009 holding; “Admittedly, the decree holder filed E.P.No.149 of 2007 for attachment of salary of the judgment debtor. In that E.P. attachment was effected and an amount of Rs.32,145/- received into court for about 15 instalments. It is also an admitted fact that the judgment debtor retired on 31.7.2009 on attaining the age of superannuation. Therefore, before his retirement, the decree holder filed E.P.No.135 of 2008 and got attached the leave salary of judgment debtor. The E.P.No.135 of 2008 under which leave salary was attached is still pending. The said E.P. is also coming along with this E.P. Till today no reply was received from the garnishee whether the leave salary was attached and lying in his office. It is the contention of decree holder that there is only meager amount to be payable to the judgment debtor under leave salary and it is not sufficient for recovery of the decreetal amount. The judgment debtor is contending that already his salary was attached and the amount is being received in this court in E.P.No.149 of 2007; further the decree holder also filed E.P.No.135 of 2008 for attachment of his leave salary; apart from that the decree holder filed the present E.P. for attachment of schedule house; in fact, the judgment debtor, after obtaining loan from ICICI Bank, Nellore purchased the schedule property under registered sale deed on 31.1.2004, the Bank has got first charge over the property, the said property belongs to the joint family consisting of himself and his two sons and daughters, hence the property belongs to joint family and it is not his exclusive property; further, the judgment debtor had also sold away an extent of 2 ½ Ankanams covered by terraced building to one Polamreddy Subbamma under registered sale deed, therefore, the judgment debtor is having only 8 Ankanams of site and house for the joint family property; the decree holder filed several E.Ps. against him; the decree holder is getting amounts from the Drawing Officer recovered from his salary and, therefore the E.P. is liable for dismissal. This contention of the judgment debtor is not at all tenable. Regarding the joint family, he has not filed any document to show that the property belongs to joint family. Further, the judgment debtor has not filed any document to show that he sold away 2 ½ Ankanams covered by terraced building to one Subbamma. No proof is filed to show that he obtained loan from ICICI Bank and the Bank has got first charge over the property. As seen from the record, it is of- course true that in E.P.No.149 of 2007 the salary of judgment debtor was attached and the Drawing Officer sent an amount of Rs.32,145/- till now. Admittedly, the judgment debtor retired on 31.7.2009 on attaining the age of superannuation. The decree holder also filed E.P.No.135 of 2008 for attachment of leave salary. It is the contention of the decree holder that a meager amount was received by judgment debtor under leave salary and therefore, the attachment in E.P.No.135 of 2008 is not sufficient. Admittedly, the judgment debtor has not discharged the amount due under the decree, though the decree holder filed several E.Ps. against him. In view of the representation made by decree holder’s counsel as the judgment debtor received meager amount towards leave salary on his retirement, which is not sufficient to satisfy the E.P. amount in E.P.No.135 of 2008, in the light of these circumstances, the objection of judgment debtor is not tenable, and the decree holder is also entitled for attachment of E.P. schedule property and to proceed against the same for realization of the amount. Hence, the objection raised by the judgment debtor is over- ruled. The point is answered in favour of decree-holder.” Being aggrieved by the said order, the present C.R.P. is filed. The learned counsel for petitioner states that more than one E.P. is not maintainable against a single decree and the salary of the petitioner was already attached, therefore the question of again attaching the E.P. schedule property does not arise. It appears, under E.P.No.149 of 2007 the salary of the petitioner was attached while he was in service and an amount of Rs.2,000/- per month was deducted from his salary and for 15 months the amounts were deducted and a total amount of Rs.32,000/- was realized. Thereafter, E.P.No.135 of 2008 was filed for attachment of leave salary of the petitioner since he had retired from service on 31.7.2009 on attaining the age of superannuation. Thereafter, the present E.P. appears to have been filed since the amounts realized under E.P.No.135 of 2008 were not sufficient to satisfy the decree. Therefore, the Executing Court vide impugned order ordered for attachment of E.P. schedule property. Under those circumstances, I am of the opinion that the Executing Court has not committed any error in allowing the said E.P. The C.R.P. is devoid of merits and liable to be dismissed. Accordingly, the C.R.P. is dismissed. No order as to costs. ______________ C.V.RAMULU, J Date: 27.4.2010 DA THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V.RAMULU C.R.P.No.4438 of 2009 27.4.2010 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V.RAMULU C.R.P.No.4438 of 2009 Date: 27th April, 2010 Between: Gunji Venkataiah .. Petitioner And Ramisetty Parvathi .. Respondent