THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V.RAMULU C.R.P.No.4460 of 2009 ORAL ORDER: This Civil Revision Petition is filed questioning the order dated 3.9.2009 made in E.P.No.135 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 22 and 48 of CPC seeking to attach the leave salary of petitioner-judgment debtor. 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 site and against that, his mother filed claim petition and the same is pending. He further stated that the decree holder also filed three E.Ps. regarding the same and E.P.No.97 of 2007 was filed for arrest, which was dismissed and E.P.No.149 of 2007 was filed for attachment of salary, wherein the Court ordered attachment of salary of the judgment debtor to a tune of Rs.2,000/- per month and the garnishee after recovering the salary from the petitioner, sending the amount to the Court continuously, hence the present E.P. for attachment of arrears of leave salary is not maintainable. After elaborate consideration of the matter, the Executing Court allowed the said E.P. vide order dated 3.9.2009 holding; “It is an admitted fact that the decree holder filed the suit O.S.No.10 of 1997 and obtained decree against the judgment- debtor; against the said decree and judgment, there is no appeal; hence the decree became final. It is also an admitted fact that the decree-holder got attached the house property of judgment-debtor before judgment and she filed E.P.No.123 of 2002 for sale of the said house property. In that E.P. the mother of the judgment debtor filed E.A.No.399 of 2003, but the same was dismissed. Against the said order she preferred appeal in A.S.No.144 of 2006 and the same was dismissed. The judgment debtor also filed E.A.No.672 of 2006 under Section 47 CPC to determine the E.P. schedule property. Further, the decree holder also filed simultaneous E.P.No.94 of 2007 for arrest of judgment debtor and the same was dismissed. Admittedly the decree holder again filed E.P.No.149 of 2007 for attachment of the salary of judgment debtor. In that E.P., salary was attached and amount is being received. Now the decree holder again filed the present E.P. for attachment of leave salary on the ground that the judgment debtor had applied for V.R.S. and he is going to retire in the month of August 2008. The judgment debtor is contending that already in E.P.No.149 of 2007 amount is being received every month from his salary, the decree holder unnecessarily filed the present E.P. for attachment of leave salary, thereby it is working out hardship to him to withdraw the retirement benefits and therefore the E.P. is liable for dismissal. In view of the objection raised by the judgment debtor, it is a fact that already his salary was attached in E.P.No.149 of 2007 and amount is also being received in that E.P., the perusal of record discloses that the Drawing Officer is sending an amount of Rs.2,143/- every month, till today 15 instalments were received, a total sum of Rs.32,145/- is recovered and available in court deposit. The Drawing Officer also informed that the judgment debtor is going to retire from service on attaining the age of superannuation by 31.7.2009. Taking into consideration of retirement of judgment debtor on 31.7.2009, admittedly the entire E.P. amount cannot be recovered from the salary of the judgment debtor because he already retired from service on 31.7.2009. Therefore, the entire amount cannot be realized. The only way for decree holder to realize the amount is by attaching the leave salary amount. A prohibitory order was also served on the Drawing Officer; the same was effected, but no reply was received so far from the garnishee. In view of the above discussion, the objection raised by the judgment debtor is not at all tenable. The point is answered in favour of the 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 leave salary of the petitioner does not arise. This submission made by the learned counsel appears to be not correct. The petitioner, on attaining the age of superannuation retired from service on 31.7.2009. According to the learned counsel for respondent-decree holder, as against the E.P. amount of Rs.1,91,241/- only an amount of Rs.32,145/- is recovered from the petitioner and for the balance amount the present E.P. has been filed and the same was ordered by the Executing Court. 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.4460 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.4460 of 2009 Date: 27th April, 2010 Between: Gunji Venkataiah .. Petitioner And Ramisetty Parvathi .. Respondent