THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE GHULAM MOHAMMED C.R.P.No.4809 of 2010 ORDER: The petitioner is the decree holder and the respondents are the judgment debtors in E.P.(GR) No.7640 of 2010 (old E.P.No.70 of 2004) in O.S.No.1105 of 2003 on the file of the I Additional Senior Civil Judge, Visakhapatnam, filed for execution of the decree, dated 11.12.2003, passed in the said suit. 2. The petitioner obtained money decree against the first respondent for a sum of Rs.1,28,906/- with interest and costs in O.S.No.1105 of 2003. Since the first respondent died, the petitioner filed E.A.No.221 of 2010 seeking to order attachment of death benefits of the deceased first respondent/judgment debtor payable to his legal representatives by the garnishee i.e., the Chairman-cum-Managing Director, Hindustan Shipyard Ltd., Visakhapatnam, after issuing notice to them. By the order, dated 28.06.2010, the executing Court issued urgent notice to R2 to R5, the legal representatives of the deceased first respondent returnable by 09.07.2010. Challenging the said docket order, the petitioner filed the present revision. 3. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the material on record. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner vehemently contended that as the Court below is adjourning the matter thrice for service of notice, R2 to R5 are going to receive the death benefits of the deceased first respondent and as such, the purpose of filing of the E.P. will be defeated. He, thus, prays to issue prohibitory order against the garnishee pending service of notice on the respondents. 5. From a perusal of the docket orders, dated 28.06.2010, 09.07.2010 and 16.07.2010 in E.A.No.221 of 2010, it is evident that the executing Court ordered to issue urgent notice to R2 to R5, the legal representatives of the deceased first respondent. Though R2 was served with notice, he was called absent and was set ex parte. Sri D. Chander Rao, learned counsel filed vakalat for R3 and seeks time for counter. Again notice to R4 and R5 was ordered. 6. Since the E.A. is filed for attachment of death benefits of the deceased first respondent, necessarily the notices to his legal representatives should be served. In a case of this nature, the service of notice on the legal representatives is essential and as such, the executing Court ordered to issue notice to them. Therefore, this Court cannot interfere with the said order of issuance of notice. However, as the petitioner obtained money decree, the executing Court is directed to dispose of E.A.No.221 of 2010, as expeditiously as possible, preferably within a period of three weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. Accordingly, the Civil Revision Petition is disposed of. No order as to costs. ______________________ GHULAM MOHAMMED, J Date: 22.10.2010 Note: Issue CC by one week. (Bo) sj