THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO.4028 OF 2006 DATED 17TH JUNE, 2010 BETWEEN N.Satya Rama Krishna … Petitioner And Shri Ram Chit Funds Private Limited, Bapatla Branch, Rep. by its Branch Manager-cum-Foreman, Bapatla. And Others. … Respondents THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO.4028 OF 2006 ORDER: The petitioner, the Judgment Debtor No.5 in E.P.No.42 of 2006 in O.S.No.80 of 2003 on the file of the Senior Civil Judge, Bapatla, assails the order of attachment dated 25.07.2006 passed therein under Order XXI, Rule 54 of the Code of Civil Procedure. This Court granted interim suspension of the said order on 18.08.2006 which was extended thereafter until further orders. In spite of service of notice, the first respondent/decree holder did not choose to put in his appearance before this Court in person or through counsel. The schedule appended to the application in E.P.No.42 of 2006 discloses that the property of the Judgment Debtor No.5 sought to be attached is situated in Vijayawada, Krishna District. The order of attachment is passed by the learned Senior Civil Judge, Bapatla, Guntur District. It is contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner that in view of the aforestated fact, the Senior Civil Judge, Bapatla had no territorial jurisdiction to pass the impugned order of attachment. Reference is made to Section 39(4) of the Code of Civil Procedure which provides that the Court which passed a decree cannot execute such decree against any person or property outside the local limits of its jurisdiction. The learned counsel also relied upon ADITYA ELECTRONICS v. M/S.A.S.IMPEX LTD.[1] to support his contention. In the light of the statutory provision, it is clear that the Senior Civil Judge at Bapatla could not have passed an order of attachment under Order XXI, Rule 54 of the Code of Civil Procedure in respect of the property situated in Krishna District. The observations in ADITYA ELECTRONICS in this regard are apposite: “34. It is clear from the provisions of the Code of Civil Procedure, that the powers of the Executing Court can be exercised only when the Judgment Debtor or his property is within the jurisdiction of the Court with only one exception regarding the attachment of salary. ………” The lower Court was therefore in error in passing the order of attachment in respect of the property of the Judgment Debtor No.5 in another District. The order dated 25.07.2006 passed by the Senior Civil Judge, Bapatla in E.P.No.42 of 2006 in O.S.No.80 of 2003 is accordingly set aside. The Civil Revision Petition is allowed. There shall be no order as to costs. ____________________ SANJAY KUMAR, J. 17TH JUNE, 2010 VGSR / PGS [1] 2004 (4) ALT 50