THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE B.SESHASAYANA REDDY C.R.P.No.1239 of 2010 Date:10.08.2010 Between: Emmadi Madanaiah and another. ……..Petitioners/defendants. And M/s.Sri Venkateswara Chit Funds, Nalgonda rep by its Manager R.Nagabhushanam and another. ……Respondents. THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE B.SESHASAYANA REDDY C.R.P.No.1239 of 2010 ORDER: This revision is directed against the order of attachment of the salary of the petitioners herein who are the J.Drs.2 & 3 in E.P.No.82 of 2009 in O.S.No.1 of 2008 on the file of the Senior Civil Judge, Nalgonda. Notice before admission came to be ordered on 19.2.2010. The petitioners have been directed to take out notice to the 1st respondent/decree holder by RPAD and file proof of service. In compliance of the directions, the petitioners took the notice to the 1st respondent/decree holder and filed proof of service. Despite notice being served, the 1st respondent/decree holder did not choose to enter appearance either in person or though a counsel. Heard learned counsel appearing for the petitioners and perused the material brought on record. The only grievance of the petitioners is that notice has been served on them in E.P.No.82 of 2009 requiring their presence either in person or through a counsel on 6.11.2009, whereas the Executing Court passed orders on 4.11.2009 ordering attachment of the salary of the petitioners under Order 21 Rule 48 CPC. In a way the contention of the petitioners is that the Executing Court proceeded to pass the order before the date fixed for their appearance. Learned counsel placed before me the order dated 4.11.2009 and also the order dated 15.9.2009. Photo Copies of the notices served on the petitioners find place at page No.9 of the material papers, which reads as hereunder:- “Whereas the above named decree holder has made application to the court of execution of decree in O.S.No.01 of 2008. This is to give you notice that you are to appear in this Court in person or by a pleader duly instructed on the day of 6.11.2009 at 10.30 a.m to show cause why execution should not be granted.” Whereas the Executing Court proceeded to take up the matter on 4.11.2009 and passed the following order:- “J.Drs. 1 & 2 absent. No representation. Issue attachment under Order 21 R48 CPC subject to Section 60 CPC call on 24-12-2009. Written and pronounced by me in the open Court on this the 4th day of November 2009.” It is explicit from the above referred order that the Executing Court proceeded to hear the matter even before the date fixed for the appearance of the petitioners to submit their response. In that view of the matter, the order passed by the Executing Court on 4.11.2009 is set aside. Accordingly, the revision is allowed. The petitioners are at liberty to file their response before the Executing Court within four weeks from today and invite orders thereon. No costs. _______________________________________ JUSTICE B. SESHASAYANA REDDY Date:10.8.2010 mrb