IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) TUESDAY, THE TWENTIETH DAY OF OCTOBER TWO THOUSAND AND NINE PRESENT: THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE K.C.BHANU CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.4517 OF 2009 Between: Penchala Mallaiah … Petitioner/Respondent/Defendant No.1 AND 1. Ramidi Shanker Reddy 2. The General Manager, RG.II, Singareni Collieries Co., Ltd., 8, Incline Colony, Kamanpur Mandal, Karimnagar. 3. The Colliery Manager, GDK-9 Incline, 8 Incline Colony, Kamanpur Mandal, Karimnagar. 4. The Manager, State Bank of Hyderabad, Jilaram Branch, 8 Incline Colony, Kamanpur Mandal, Karimnagar District. … Respondents/Respondents/Defendants The Court made the following : ORDER: The revision, under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, is directed against the order, dated 25.02.2009, made in I.A.No.607 of 2008 in O.S.No.23 of 2008, on the file of the learned Senior Civil Judge, Manthani, Karimnagar District, in ordering fresh attachment with a specific direction to Respondent Nos.2 and 3 to attach an amount of Rs.2,02,500/- and the remaining amount, if any, attached shall be payable to Respondent No.1 and further ordering that the attachment was subject to Section 60 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (for short, ‘C.P.C.’). 2. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner/defendant No.1. 3. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner herein contended that there is no allegation that the petitioner herein is trying to conceal the amount; that under Section 60 of C.P.C. amount cannot be attached and therefore, he prays to set aside the impugned order, dated 25.02.2009. 4. The impugned order, dated 25.02.2009, clearly states that the attachment is subject to Section 60 of C.P.C. There cannot be any dispute that certain amounts payable to judgment debtor under Section 60 of C.P.C. are not liable for attachment. Therefore, the apprehension of the petitioner herein that the gratuity amount has been attached cannot be accepted. Only to the extent of the suit amount has been attached and the remaining amount has been ordered to be paid to the petitioner herein. Therefore, the impugned order, dated 25.02.2009, does not suffer from any infirmities so as to call for interference by this Court. Hence, the Civil Revision Petition is devoid of merit and is liable to be dismissed. 16. Accordingly, the Civil Revision Petition is dismissed confirming the order, dated 25.02.2009, made in I.A.No.607 of 2008 in O.S.No.23 of 2008, on the file of the learned Senior Civil Judge, Manthani, Karimnagar District. There shall be no order as to costs. _______________ (K.C. BHANU, J Date: 20th October, 2009 KL