THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE B. PRAKASH RAO CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.1982 of 2009 ORDER: Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner. Though the matter has been coming up, none appeared for the respondents on the earlier occasion i.e., on 13.11.2009 and even today. Therefore, the revision is taken up disposed of. The petitioner, who is the judgment debtor, is aggrieved against the order dated 04.03.2009 in E.P.No.1094 of 2007 in O.S.No.1200 of 1997 on the file of the Court of I Additional Junior Civil Judge, Guntur, which was filed in pursuance of a decree obtained in the main suit. The said order reads as under: “ Rule 48 went executed on Garnishee. Attachment effected, attachment made it absolute. E.P. closed.” The main objection raised by the petitioner/JDR is to the effect that the decree was granted only against the estate of late Nagasuryanarayana and it was not against him personally, yet execution proceedings were ensued against him and his salary lying in the hands of garnishee is being attached. Further, it is stated that he filed counter in the E.P. raising the said objection, but neither the same was considered nor any reason was shown in the impugned order to reject such plea. Having considered the submissions made, it is relevant to extract the conclusive paragraph in judgment dated 04.11.1999 in O.S.No.1200 of 1997 on the file of the Court of the learned I Additional Junior Civil Judge, Guntur, which reads as under: “ In the result, the suit is decreed against the D.1, D.4, D.5 and D.6 and against the property of one Nagasuryanarayana if lying in the hands of D.1. to D.3 for an amount of Rs.36,300/- with costs and subsequent interest on Rs.33,000/- at the rate of 6% from the date of the suit till the date of realization.” From the above, it is quite apparent that the decree was passed only against the estate of late Nagasuryanarayana. Thus, the objection as raised by the petitioner/JDR necessarily needs to be considered on its own merits and, appropriate finding has to be given on that. Such a finding is absent in the impugned order. Except passing one line mechanical order, no attention seems to have been paid to the counter and the objections raised therein, including the specific objection as sought now. In the facts and circumstances of the case, the matter requires to be considered afresh, on merits, by the Court below. The Civil Revision Petition is allowed and the impugned order dated 04.03.2009 in E.P.No.1094 of 2007 in O.S.No.1200 of 1997 on the file of the Court of the learned I Additional Junior Civil Judge, Guntur, is set aside and the Court below is directed to consider the matter afresh on merits after hearing both sides and considering all the objections raised and to pass appropriate orders in accordance with law. No order as to costs. ___________________ B. PRAKASH RAO, J 22nd January, 2010 GHN