IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF ANDHRA PRDESH:: HYDERABAD TUESDAY, THE EIGHTH DAY OF NOVEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND ELEVEN PRESENT:: HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G.V.SEETHAPATHY C.R.P.No.3094 OF 2009 Between: Sk.Dule Pasha …Petitioner A n d Paladi Bhasker Rao and another ..Respondents HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G.V.SEETHAPATHY C.R.P.No.3094 OF 2009 ORDER: This civil revision petition is directed against the order 22.01.2009 in E.A.No.16 of 2009 in O.S.No.313 of 2005, on the file of the Principal Junior Civil Judge, Kothagudem, whereunder a sum of Rs.85,280/- due under the decree was directed to be attached from out of the terminal benefits of the petitioner/judgment debtor on the eve of his retirement from service and the warrant of attachment was sought to be served on the garnishee i.e., Deputy Plantation Manager, A.P.F.D.C Limited, Sathupally. 2. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner/judgment debtor. None appears for the respondent/decree holder. Perused the record. 3. The 1st respondent herein filed the suit O.S.No.313 of 2005 against the petitioner for recovery of an amount due in the Court of Principal Junior Civil judge, Kothagudem and the decree was passed on 14.08.2008. For realization of the amount due under the decree for an amount of Rs.85,280/-, the EP was filed. In the EP, it is stated that petitioner/judgment debtor is working in the office of Deputy Plantation Manager, A.P.F.D.C Limited, Sathupally. The terminal benefits of the petitioner/judgment debtor to the extent of the EP amount are also sought to be attached in the said office situate at Sathupally. The petitioner/judgment debtor is also stated to be resident of Sathupally. Admittedly, the decree passed by the Principal Junior Civil Judge’s Court at Kothagudem has not been transferred to the Court of Sathupally for the purpose of execution. In the EP itself, the respondent/decree holder has stated that he is taking steps for transfer of the decree, but it would take some time and in the mean time if the amount is paid to the judgment debtor, the decree holder would be put to loss. That cannot be a ground for ordering attachment of the terminal benefits payable to the judgment debtor who is admittedly residing and working outside the jurisdiction of the Court at Kothagudem. In the absence of transmission of the decree for execution to the Court of Junior Civil Judge, Sathupally, the original Court at Kothagudem, which passed the decree will not have any jurisdiction to order attachment of the terminal benefits, which are payable to the judgment debtor by his office at Sathupally. The impugned order of attachment is, therefore, clearly unsustainable, as the same is passed by the Court at Kothagudem without any jurisdiction. 4. In ADITYA ELETRONICS, HYDERABAD V. A.S.IMPEX LIMITED, NEW DELHI AND OTHERS[1], this Court in similar circumstances held that attachment cannot be ordered by execution Court when both the judgment debtor and garnishees are residing outside the jurisdiction of the Court and have no properties within the jurisdiction of the Court. 5. In the circumstances, the impugned order is held liable to be set aside and the same is accordingly set aside. Attachment is raised. 6. In the result, the civil revision petition is allowed. There shall be no order as to costs. _____________________ G.V.SEETHAPATHY, J 08th November, 2011 Lrkm. [1] 2004(2) ALD 779