THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR C.R.P.No.3323 of 2006 Date: 17.06.2010 Between: The Commissioner, Vijayawada Municipal Corporation, Vijayawada. … Petitioner AND Basa Bhaskarao and 2 others … Respondents THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR C.R.P. No.3323 of 2006 ORDER: This Civil Revision Petition arises out of the order dated 08.06.2006 passed by the Junior Civil Judge, Bantumilli in E.A.No.138 of 2006 in E.P.No.90 of 2004 in O.S.No.43 of 2004 directing attachment of the salary of the Commissioner, Vijayawada Municipal Corporation, Vijayawada/judgment debtor No.2. 2. Smt. G. Jhansi, learned counsel for the petitioner/ judgment debtor No.2 pointed out that her client was not given any hearing prior to the passing of the order as is evident from the order itself. The order impugned reads as follows: “Perused the petition. Counsel for the Decree Holder submits that Garnishee/J.D.No.2 appointed Sri Abraham Lincon, Advocate on his behalf in E.A.No.240 of 2005, and after hearing the parties the garnishee is added as J.D.No.2 as per the orders dt.13.3.2006. So since J.D.No.2 has knowledge about this case, attach the salary of J.D.No.2 who is under the control of Principal Secretary, Municipal Administration, A.P. State Government, Saifabad, Hyderabad to deduct the salary subject to Section 60 C.P.C. Petition is allowed.” 3. Merely because the judgment debtor No.2, being a garnishee, had been added as a party, he could not have been denied further opportunity of hearing prior to the passing of the order attaching his salary. The order is therefore liable to be set aside, and is accordingly so done. 4. It is represented by Sri Sai Gangadhar Chamarthy, the learned counsel for the respondent/decree holder, that the actual judgment debtor already paid the decretal amount in full. The full satisfaction of the decree is said to have been recorded in E.P.No.81 of 2004, which was also filed for execution of the same decree. 5. In the light of the aforesaid representation, it is clear that E.P.No.90 of 2004 itself does not survive for consideration after setting aside the order impugned in this C.R.P. Both the parties shall take steps accordingly before the lower Court for getting the E.P. closed. 6. The Civil Revision Petition is accordingly allowed. No order as to costs. __________________ SANJAY KUMAR, J Date: 17.06.2010 Isn