THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE B.PRAKASH RAO C.R.P.No.4422 of 2008 ORDER: The petitioner is the decree holder, who files this revision by invoking the jurisdiction of this Court under Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure inter alia seeking to assail the correctness of the orders dismissing an application by it purportedly filed under Order 21 Rule 46 of the Code of Civil Procedure directing the 4th respondent herein to deposit an amount of R.85,17,943.89 ps in the execution laid by it in pursuance of a decree obtained against the Judgment debtors viz., respondents 1 to 4 herein. Heard Sri D.Hanumanth Rao learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner and Tara Sharma, the learned counsel appearing for the respondent No.4. The brief facts of the case are, that the petitioner filed a suit in O.S.No.264 of 2004 inter alia seeking for recovery of Rs.63,37,872/- against the defendants viz., respondents 1 to 3 herein under Order 37 Rules 1 and 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure. Pending the suit, the petitioner filed an interlocutory application in I.A.No.2629 of 2004 purportedly under the very same provision under order 21 Rule 46 of the Code of Civil Procedure seeking for garnishee attachment against the respondent herein to withhold a sum of Rs.62,35,872/-which is due from it to the judgment debtors. Accordingly, as per the interim orders granted therein on 15-10-2004 similar direction was given . However, subsequently, the said interim application was dismissed for default on 13-6-2006 and the said order has remained unchallenged and no restoration application is filed. Later on, the main suit itself was decreed as per the Judgment and decree dated 1-8-2006, and since no amount is forthcoming the petitioner laid the execution in E.P.No.112 of 2007 wherein the present application is filed for the aforesaid relief once again seeking for deposit as a garnishee. On opposition by the respondent, the Court below did not find favour with the petitioner’s request mainly on the ground that having regard to the dismissal of the application pending the suit and also the factum of pendency of arbitral proceedings, no directions can be issued. Hence this revision. During the course of arguments there have been several contentions raised, but however, the fact remains that the interim application filed during the pendency of the suit in I.A.No.2629 of 2004, though the attachment was made on 15-10-2004, was dismissed for default on 13-6-2000 and no attempt was made on behalf of the petitioner for its restoration or for obtaining any fresh orders. Therefore, it can be safely taken that there was no attachment during the pendency of the suit. The suit was ultimately decreed on 1-8-2006 and the present application is as fresh as anything in the execution laid by the petitioner. The fact that arbitral proceedings are also pending in respect of the claim between the judgment debtor and the garnishee is not seriously disputed. In the counter affidavit, which has been sworn to by Mr.S.C.Hans, who is Additional General Manager and Company Secretary of the respondent No.4, the particulars of the arbitral proceedings are given in detail, which shows that three proceedings are pending before the sole arbitrator who was individually appointed. Therefore, in the absence of any such award, it cannot be said that there is any liability subsisting in between or payable to the judgment debtors, which can proceed against as garnishee. It is now well established that for obtaining any orders of garnishee, necessarily, the petitioner or the judgment debtor has to establish that there is a debt or amount which, is liable to be obtained to the judgment debtors and which is lying in the hands of the garnishee. The petitioner has not spelt out as to how he can say that there exists any such amount in the hands of the garnishee. Therefore, in the absence of establishing such existence of liability, the question of garnishee does not arise. Therefore, having regard to the aforesaid twin reasons, I am of the opinion that the petitioner has hopelessly failed to make any case to warrant grant of garnishee against the respondent No.4. There re no merits in the revision and it is accordingly dismissed. No costs. __________________ B PRAKASH RAO,J DATE: 15.4.2011 GRK