THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE A.GOPAL REDDY CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.2107 of 2010 Date of Order:11.03.2011 Between: Indian Bank, Mogalrajpuram Branch ..Petitioner and V.E.Avadani and others ..Respondents The Court made the following Order: THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE A.GOPAL REDDY CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.2107 of 2010 ORDER :- This revision is directed by the petitioner-Indian Bank, against the orders of the executing Court in E.P.No.73 of 2010 in O.S.No.62 of 2000, dated 30.04.2010, in issuing a warrant of attachment of movable property in execution of a decree for money. Petitioner/bank suffered a decree for recovery of the fees payable to the Advocates in O.S.No.62 of 2000 before the II Additional District Judge, Vijayawada for Rs.10,25,170/- being the principal and interest for appearing in O.A.No.20 of 1995 before the Debts Recovery Tribunal, Bangalore. Against the decree granted by the lower court, the petitioner carried the matter in appeal being A.S.No.1176 of 2002 and batch. A Division Bench of this Court allowed the appeals on 10.02.2006 confining the decree to the extent of Rs.30,000/- only in favour of the plaintiffs/decree holders and also for the balance amount out of the legal fees as shown in the decree to be payable by the defendant as and when the same is recovered either in execution of the certificate issued by the Tribunal or by way of settlement with the debtors. On a review filed by the decree holders/plaintiffs in Review CMP.No.1669 of 2006 and batch, this Court by order, dated 28.11.2007, clarified the order of the last portion as referred to above, as under: “that the petitioners are at liberty to take all such steps independently for recovery of the amounts to which they are liable to be paid by the respondents herein and the same shall be pursued independently uninfluenced by the directions mentioned in the last portion and it is also open to the respondents to contest the same.” On disposal of the review, the present Execution Petition, for a sum of Rs.15,57,434/- and with costs, came to be filed on 26.02.2010, admittedly after two years from the date of the decree, as modified in A.S. and in Review CMP. The learned executing court issued warrant of attachment of movables for the said amount. On issuance of the warrant of attachment, the petitioner deposited the entire amount and filed this revision questioning the issuance of warrant of attachment. This Court stayed all further proceedings including the realisation of the amount deposited by the Bank to the credit of the above O.P. Sri M.R.K.Chowdary, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the respondents brought to the notice of this Court that the order, dated 28.11.2007, passed in Review CMP.No.1669 of 2006 is corrected by this Court as per the Court orders, dated 26.02.2009, in ASMP.No.1760 of 2008 substituting the order, dated 28.11.2007, by the Court order, dated 26.02.2009, in CMP.No.1765 of 2008 in Review CMP.No.2185 of 2006 in A.S.No.1276 of 2002. The note to the dispatched order does not indicate about any amendment carried out to the order passed in review CMP.No.1669 of 2006 in A.S.No.1176 of 2002, but indicates about the correction in the cause title of 1st respondent in Review CMPs in A.S.No.1276 of 2002. Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that when the Execution Petition itself is filed on expiry of two years, necessarily a notice has to be issued and also should record the reasons for dispensing the notice, as held by this Court in M.Sheelamma v. B.Alibert[1]. Without recording any reasons to the said effect, the Executing Court straight away issued an attachment order particularly when the petitioner is a nationalised bank. Hence, the order of attachment attaching the movable properties particularly against the bank is an illegality committed by the Executing Court. On the other hand, learned senior counsel Sri M.R.K.Chowdary contends that once the Execution Petition is filed within two years as per the amendment carried out to the review order, dated 26.02.2009, it is not necessary for issuing a notice. The fact remains that in the Execution Petition filed by the respondents it is nowhere mentioned about the amendment carried out to show that the Execution Petition is filed within two years to dispense with the notice. The learned Judge unmindful of the fact that the petitioner is a nationalised bank, straight away issued order of attachment of movable properties, which includes the Computers and other movables and which are necessary for day to day conducting of the business and it is a serious matter. Prima facie, as per the contents of the columns filled in by the decree holder, the Execution Petition is filed beyond two years and hence, a notice should necessarily be given to the judgment debtor before issuing the order of attachment of movable property. The manner in which the Executing Court issued order of attachment does not commend appreciation from this Court. Having regard to the fact that the amount is already deposited to the credit of the Execution Petition, suffice to direct the Executing Court to consider the objections of the petitioner-bank before payment of the amount deposited to the credit of the O.P. and the entitlement of the decree holder to the amount due in the light of the order passed by this Court in the appeal and as modified in the review petitions. The Civil Revision Petition is, accordingly, disposed of. The Executing Court is directed to dispose of the Execution Petition by giving an opportunity to both parties within a period of six weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. There shall be no order as to costs. _________________ A. GOPAL REDDY, J March 11, 2011 Lmv [1] AIR 2006 AP 209