HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE R. SUBHASH REDDY CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.4053 of 2010 Date : 25.03.2011 Between : The Project Officer, Integrated Child Development Services, Nellore. …..Petitioner And Gogula Ratnamma & another. …..Respondents HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE R. SUBHASH REDDY CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.4053 of 2010 ORDER : This civil revision petition is filed, aggrieved by the order, dated 30th of August 2010, passed by the Principal Junior Civil Judge, Nellore, in E.A.No.283 of 2010 in E.A.No.130 of 2010 in E.P.No.777 of 2008 in O.S.No.463 of 2008. The 1st respondent herein has filed a suit for recovery of money against the 2nd respondent-judgment debtor. As the 2nd respondent was the employee of the petitioner, there was an order for attachment of salary of 2nd respondent. As the petitioner-garnishee refused to receive notice, orders are passed to arrest the petitioner to recover the E.P. amount. At that stage, the petitioner has filed E.A.No.283 of 2010, seeking to release the garnishee on self-bond and to give two months time to pay the E.P. amount. The Court below, by considering the reasons mentioned in the said petition, by order dated 30th of August 2010, ordered for release of petitioner on personal bond for Rs.1,00,000/- and on her undertaking to pay the amount within a period of one week. In this revision petition, it is contended by the learned counsel for petitioner that as the 2nd respondent- employee was not working with her, she could not recover any amount from the salary of the 2nd respondent- judgment debtor. Further, it is submitted that due to pressure, the application in E.A.No.283 of 2010 was filed. So far as this revision petition is concerned, it is to be noticed that it is filed only against the order in E.A.No.283 of 2010, filed by the petitioner, seeking release of garnishee on self-bond and to give two months time to pay the E.P. amount. The same was accepted by the Court below and ordered for payment of such amount within a period of one week, by an order, dated 30th of August 2010. It is submitted that the said amount is not paid though more than six months time is elapsed. In that view of the matter, there is no reason to question such an order, which was passed as prayed by the petitioner herself. If it is the case of the petitioner that the judgment debtor is not working under her, it is open for the petitioner to question the other orders passed by the Court below, but so far as the impugned order is concerned, I do not find any illegality, which warrants interference in this revision filed under Section 115 of C.P.C. For the aforesaid reasons, this revision petition is dismissed, leaving it open to the petitioner to question the other orders, of which, she is aggrieved of. No costs. ______________________ R. SUBHASH REDDY, J 25th March 2011 ajr