THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V.RAMULU CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.4958 of 2009 Dated: 06.11.2009 Between: The Principal, College of Veterinary Sciences, A.P.Agricultural University, Tirupati. .. Petitioner. And Gaddam Subba Rao. .. Respondent ORDER: This Civil Revision Petition, under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, is directed against an order dated 21.07.2009 in E.A.No.25 of 2007 in E.P.No.18 of 2003 in O.P.No.322 of 1998 on the file of the learned Principal District Judge, Nellore, whereunder the application filed under Order XXI, Rule 46 C.P.C. to issue show cause notice to the Judgment Debtor (Garnishee) calling upon him to answer as to why the decree should not be executed against him, was allowed. Petitioner herein is the respondent and respondent herein is the plaintiff in O.P.No.322 of 1998 instituted on the file of the Principal District Judge-cum-Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Nellore. The said O.P. was filed by the plaintiff seeking compensation of Rs.2,02,200/-, for the injuries sustained by him in the accident that occurred on 12.02.1998 at Kovvur, due to a hit by the vehicle belonging to the respondent. However, since the respondent did not contest the matter in spite of service of summons, the Court below passed an ex parte award granting an amount of Rs.1,82,491/- towards compensation to the plaintiff. Thereupon, the plaintiff/decree holder filed E.P.No.18 of 2003, seeking attachment of the salary of the respondent/judgment debtor, in which the attachment of salary of the judgment debtor to a tune of Rs.5,000/- per month was ordered and warrant of attachment was served on the judgment debtor. Pursuant to the said attachment, an amount of Rs.91,300/-, in total, was recovered from the salary of the judgment debtor on various dates and credited the same into the account of the E.P. Subsequently, it appears that when the judgment debtor was still due an amount of Rs.91,191/- to the decree holder and failed to pay the same, the decree holder filed the present E.A.No.25 of 2007 in the said E.P., under Order XXI, Rule 46 C.P.C., to issue show cause notice to the judgment debtor calling upon him to answer as to why the decree should not be executed against him. The Court below, having considered both oral and documentary evidence, allowed the petition by the impugned order dated 21.07.2009. Aggrieved thereby, the present Civil Revision Petition is allowed. Sri A.Venkataramana, learned counsel for the petitioner, submits that the vehicle involved in the accident, for which the O.P. is filed, was already sold by the petitioner, in public auction, about one year prior to the accident and, after paying the bid amount of Rs.92,000/- on 25.01.1997, the said vehicle was transferred to the transferee, who is also shown as one of the judgment debtors in the E.P. He also submits that since the crime vehicle has been transferred and the RC book, life tax payment receipt and the insurance cover note were also handed over to the transferee by the date of the accident, the half of the amount due under the E.P. has to be recovered from the transferee, since the petitioner herein and the transferee are equally liable to pay the compensation amount as per the decree under the joint and several liability, and that the petitioner herein had already fulfilled his part of obligation under the award by paying half of the compensation amount awarded by the Tribunal. The proposition set up by the learned counsel for the petitioner cannot be accepted and the same is liable to be rejected, since he did not put into the teeth of law. It is to be noted that though the vehicle was sold to the transferee and RC book, insurance cover note etc. are stated to have been handed over to the transferee, the name of the transferee has not been recorded in the record of Regional Transport Authority as owner of the crime vehicle by the date of the accident, and, therefore, the petitioner is liable for the acts and omissions committed by the transferee while dealing with the vehicle till the ownership of the vehicle is transferred in the name of the transferee. With regard to joint and several liability, it is settled law that it is open to the decree holder to choose to proceed against any of the judgment debtor against whom the liability is joint and several. Thus, the contention of the petitioner that he discharged his liability under the decree by paying half of the compensation awarded by the Tribunal and he is not liable to pay the remaining amount is not sustainable. In these circumstances, I find no merits in the Civil Revision Petition calling for interference of this Court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India and the Civil Revision Petition is liable to be dismissed. Accordingly, the Civil Revision Petition is dismissed. However, the petitioner is granted four weeks’ time to comply with the impugned order dated 21.07.2009. No order as to costs. _____________ C.V.RAMULU,J 06.11.2009 Note:- Issue CC in three days B/o v v