IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD MONDAY, THE ELEVENTH DAY OF APRIL TWO THOUSAND AND ELEVEN PRESENT THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE VILAS V. AFZULPURKAR CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.2507 of 2007 BETWEEN Siddi Trimurthulu. ... PETITIONER AND Deputy Director, NFCL Road, Social Welfare Department, Kakinada, E.G. District and five others. ...RESPONDENTS Counsel for the Petitioner : MR. CH. DHANAMJAYA Counsel for the Respondent: --NONE APPEARED-- The Court made the following: ORDER: Petitioner is the decree holder. He filed a suit being O.S.No.13 of 2005 for recovery of amount and vide orders dated 18.02.2005 in I.A.No.180 of 2005 obtained order of attachment with respect to the service benefits of the deceased. The said attachment order, in the nature of Garnishee, for Rs.1,55,793/- appears to have been served on the Garnishee on 22.02.2005. Subsequently, the suit was decreed on 13.08.2005 and the petitioner filed E.P.No.180 of 2005 for recovery of the amount and filed application E.A.No.3 of 2006 to send for the attached amounts from the Garnishee. A notice in that application also appears to have been served on the garnishee and thereafter, the garnishee came up with an affidavit styled as explanation filed by the garnishee. The said explanation refers to the mode of payment under various heads and describes gratuity, pension, general provident fund, life insurance and family benefit fund as various amounts standing to the credit of the deceased described as non attachable amounts and only to the extent of leave salary of Rs.14,596/- was claimed to be attachable amount. The garnishee further states that all the non attachable amounts were paid to the legal heirs of the deceased, however, the dates of payment were not mentioned. 2. The Court below has taken the said explanation into account and on finding that there are no amounts available for attachment, has closed the memo filed by the petitioner. It is also evident that earlier the Court had issued a show cause notice to the garnishee dated 06.01.2006 for non-compliance of the earlier orders of attachment passed by the Court and calling upon the garnishee to show cause as to why the salary of the deceased could not be attached to the extent of benefits. Subsequently, the explanation of the garnishee appears to have been accepted and though the impugned order dated 28.04.2006 reads as memo is closed, it is apparent that the application E.A.No.3 of 2006 calling for the attached amount from the garnishee now stands rejected in view of there being no amounts. 3. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner. Nobody appears for the respondents, though they are served. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner points out that the garnishee himself has certified certain amounts as non attachable and the Court below has proceeded to accept the said explanation and has virtually closed E.A.No.3 of 2006. 5. I find force in the said submission inasmuch as the attachment order with respect to terminal benefits of the deceased was dated 18.02.2005 and after service of said attachment order, the garnishee could not have made any payments to the legal heirs except after obtaining the leave of the Court. The garnishee apparently has not complied with the order of attachment and after the show cause notice was issued to him by the Court, he has come up with an explanation that various amounts, which are already paid by him to the legal heirs, are non attachable amounts. The Court below has unfortunately accepted the said explanation without verifying as to on what date the payments allegedly have been made and whether they are before or after the service of attachment. Further, whether the amounts are attachable or not is a matter, which the Court must adjudicate upon and it is not for the garnishee to take a decision in that regard and make payments, as is stated in the explanation of the garnishee. 6. The executing Court, therefore, has apparently not looked into both the aspects, referred to above and as such, the impugned order is set aside. E.A.No.3 of 2006 shall stand restored to its file and shall be enquired into by the executing Court by giving notice and hearing all the parties and thereafter, shall pass a reasoned order within a period of three (3) months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. The civil revision petition is accordingly disposed of. There shall be no order as to costs. _____________________ VILAS V. AFZULPURKAR, J April 11, 2011 DSK