THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K.G.SHANKAR CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.5886 of 2010 Date:03.12.2011 Between: Thammana Sanyasi Setti ..... Petitioner/Decree-Holder. AND Shaik Begum Kumari and another. .....Respondents/Judgment-Debtors. The Court made the following: THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K.G.SHANKAR CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.5886 of 2010 ORDER: Notice to the 2nd respondent is not served. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the 2nd respondent is not a necessary party and notice need not go to him. This petition is disposed of without hearing the 2nd respondent. 2. The petitioner is the Decree-Holder. The respondents are the Judgment-Debtors 1 & 2. The Decree-Holder laid O.S.No.127 of 2003 on the ﬁle of the Junior Civil Judge’s Court, Narsipatnam against the Judgment-Debtors who were borrowers. The 1st Judgment-Debtor would appear to have ﬁled written statement. The 2nd Judgment-Debtor remained e x parte. The 1st Judgment-Debtor also did not participate in the trial. Consequently, the suit was decreed ex parte. 3. The Decree-Holder, later ﬁled E.P.No.256 of 2005 on the ﬁle of the Principal Junior Civil Judge, Visakhapatnam against the 1st Judgment- Debtor. It is claimed that the 1s t Judgment-Debtor has been working as an Attender in the Court of the III Additional Junior Civil Judge, Visakhapatnam. Her salary is sought to be attached. 4. The 1st Judgment-Debtor ﬁled counter claiming that she is not Shaik Begum Kumari as described in the decree and in the suit, that she is Shaik Kumari Bai, that she is not the Judgment- Debtor in O.S.No.127 of 2003 and that the decree in O.S.No.127 of 2003 is not executable against her. 5. The grouse of the learned counsel for the petitioner/Decree-Holder is that after the counter of the 1st Judgment-Debtor, the Execution Petition was straight away dismissed by the Execution Court without according opportunity to the Decree-Holder to prove his case that the 1st Judgment-Debtor indeed was the executant of the pronote and that the suit indeed was laid against the 1st Judgment-Debtor. It is a question of fact as to whether the 1st Judgment-Debtor and the person against whom the decree is sought to be executed are one and the same. When the person whose salary is sought to be attached is claiming that she is not Judgment-Debtor No.1, it would be just and proper to accord opportunity to the Decree-Holder to prove that the salary attachment was indeed against the salary of the 1st Judgment- Debtor. I, therefore, consider that reasonable opportunity deserves to be accorded to the petitioner to prove his case before the trial Court. 6. Consequently, the orders in E.P.No.256 of 2005 are set aside. The case is remitted to the Execution Court. The Execution Court is requested to accord opportunity to the Decree- Holder as well as the respondents to establish their respective cases and then pass necessary orders. The Execution Court indeed is at liberty to proceed with the case and pass orders if either side does not adduce evidence and does not contest the case. The revision is ordered accordingly. There shall be no order as to costs. _________________________ JUSTICE K.G. SHANKAR Date:03.12.2011. mrb