THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE N.R.L. NAGESWARA RAO CIVIL REVISION PETITION No. 4317 OF 2010 Dated: 24.01.2011 Between: M/s Sumanth Chit Funds ..... Petitioner AND Vemu Jyothi & Ors. .....Respondents THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE N.R.L. NAGESWARA RAO CIVIL REVISION PETITION No. 4317 OF 2010 ORDER This revision petition is filed against the Order dated 31.05.2010 in E.P. No. 28 of 2007 in O.S. No. 170 of 1997 on the file of the Principal Senior Civil Judge, Kothagudem. The decree-holder has filed the application for recovery of decretal amount and sought for attachment of the salary of the 4th respondent. The 4th respondent contended that in view of the provisions under Section 136 (1) of C.P.C as the garnishee and the 4th J.D.R. reside at Bhupalpally of Adilabad District and they are outside the jurisdiction of the Court, which passed the order of attachment of salary, the Order suffers from illegality. After considering the contention on both sides, the learned Senior Civil Judge dismissed the Execution Application on the ground that it is barred under Section 136 of C.P.C. as the garnishee and the J.D.R. reside outside the jurisdiction of the Court, which passed the Order of attachment and also the decree. Aggrieved by the said order, the present revision is filed. Notice was issued to the J.D.R. No.4, who is the 4th respondent and notice was dispensed with for the other respondents as they are said to be not necessary parties. The point for consideration is whether the Order of the lower Court in dismissing the Execution Petition is legal and sustainable? The learned Senior Civil Judge relied upon a decision in ADITYA ELECTRONICS, HYDERABAD Vs. A.S. IMPEX LIMITED, NEW DELHI AND OTHERS[1] , in which the attachment of debts due to J.D.R. from the garnishee who are outside the jurisdiction of the Court, which passed the Order of attachment, were found to be not legal and accordingly dismissed the E.P. The learned counsel for the petitioner contends from the facts of this case that the decision relied in ADITYA ELECTRONICS, HYDERABAD’s case (supra) by the lower Court is not legal. The question of attachability of the salary is not in dispute. The question is as to whether the salary of the J.D.R. No.4, who is residing outside the jurisdiction of the Court at Adilabad district under the employment of garnishee is valid or not. The above decision deals with the attachment of the debts due to the J.D.R. whereas under Order 21 Rule 46 of C.P.C a special provision has been made for attachment of the salaries and allowances to the employees of the State Government, Local Authorities, Railway Companies. Order 21 Rule 48 (1) reads as follows: “Attachment of salary or allowances of servant of the Government or railway company or local authority: (1) Where the property to be attached is the salary or allowances of a servant of the Government or of a servant of a railway company or local authority (or of a servant of a Corporation engaged in any trade or industry which is established by a Central, Provincial or State Act, or a Government company as defined in section 617 of the Companies Act, 1956 (1 of 1956), the Court, whether the judgment-debtor or the disbursing officer is or is not within the local limits of the Court’s jurisdiction, may order that the amount shall, subject to the provisions of section 60, be withheld from such salary or allowances either in one payment or by monthly instalments as the Court may direct; and, upon notice of the order to such officer as the appropriate Government may by notification in the Official Gazette appoint in this behalf,- (a) where such salary or allowances are to be disbursed within the local limits to which this Code for the time being extends, the officer or other person whose duty it is to disburse the same shall withhold and remit to the Court the amount due under the order, or the monthly instalments, as the case may be; (b) where such salary or allowances are to be disbursed beyond the said limits, the officer or other person within those limits whose duty it is to instruct the disbursing authority regarding the amount of the salary or allowances to be disbursed shall remit to the Court the amount due under the order, or the monthly instalments, as the case may be, and shall direct the disbursing authority to reduce the aggregate of the amounts from time to time to be disbursed by the aggregate of the amounts from time to time remitted to the Court.” Therefore, the above decision clearly gives a right to the decree- holder to apply for attachment of the salary of the J.D.R. where he or the disbursing officer is or is not within the legal limits of jurisdiction of the Court. The only limitation is the attachability under Section 60 of C.P.C. But, for that, there is no prohibition in issuing an Order of attachment of salary belonging to the J.D.R. residing outside the jurisdiction of the Court. In fact, in a decision in SALEEM ADVOCATE BAR ASSOCIATION, TAMIL NADU Vs. UNION OF INDIA[2] at para 24, which was relied on in the lower Court by the petitioners has also referred to the power of the Court to Order attachment of the salary of the J.D.R. living within or outside the jurisdiction of the Court. Therefore, for the above reasons the C.R.P. is allowed and as the impugned Order suffers from infirmity, it is set aside. The E.P. No. 28 of 2007 in O.S. No. 170 of 1997 on the file of the Principal Senior Civil Judge, Kothagudem is restored to file and the lower Court is directed to proceed further in the matter. No costs. ______________________ N.R.L. NAGESWARA RAO, J Date: 24.01.2011 tsk [1] 2004 (2) ALD 779 [2] 2005 (3) L.S. 14 (S.C.)