Research › Search › Judgment

Andhra High Court · body

2013 DIGILAW 922 (AP)

D. Anasuya v. Melichavuru Rajeswara Rao

2013-10-25

A.RAJASHEKER REDDY

body2013
JUDGMENT 1. This Civil Revision Petition is directed against the order dated 25-04-2013 in E.P.No.56 of 2013 in O.S.No.87 of 2012 passed by the Principal Senior Civil Judge, Kothagudem, ordering attachment of salary of the revision petitioner/judgment debtor. 2. The facts, which are necessary for disposal of the present revision, are that the 1st respondent herein filed a suit for recovery of money against the revision petitioner, which was decreed on 19-02-2013 and thereafter, as the revision petitioner has not paid the decreetal amount, the 1st respondent filed E.P.No.56 of 2013 under Order XXI Rule 48 of the Code of Civil Procedure for execution of the decree dated 19-02-2013. The Court below issued salary attachment warrant on 25-04-2013 directing the employer of the revision petitioner to withhold/attach a sum of Rs.3,48,170/-being the E.P. amount from the salary of the revision petitioner/judgment debtor in monthly instalments subject to Section 60 CPC after deducting the first Rs.1,000/- and 2/3rd of the salary, the remaining 1/3rd of the salary in (24) months until further orders or the entire debt is discharged, whichever is earlier and remit the said sum (or monthly instalments) to the credit to the above E.P. by way of demand draft, drawn in favour of Principal Senior Civil Judge, Kothagudem. Against the said salary attachment warrant, the present Civil Revision Petition has been filed. 3. Learned counsel for the revision petitioner contends that the decree itself is nullity as the Civil Court has no jurisdiction to pass decree as well as to issue salary attachment warrant on the ground that both the parties are residing in the schedule area. He further contends that the said decree is an ex parte decree and the petition under Order IX Rule 13 CPC was filed, which is still pending for consideration and until the said petition is disposed of, the decree cannot be executed. He placed reliance on judgment in Civil Appeal Nos. 5030-5036 of 2004 dated 25-09-2012. He also stated that in the promissory note the residence of the 1st respondent was mentioned as Lakshmidevipalli, Kothagudem, Khammam District and the said village comes under the scheduled area in the notification issued by the Government of India. As such, as the decree as well as salary attachment warrant are null and void without jurisdiction, the same cannot be given effect to. 4. As such, as the decree as well as salary attachment warrant are null and void without jurisdiction, the same cannot be given effect to. 4. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the 1st respondent-decree holder submits that in the plaint in O.S.No.87 of 2012, the 1st respondent clearly stated that the suit promissory note was executed at Kothagudem and in the para relating to cause of action also, it was clearly mentioned that the suit promissory note was executed at Kothagudem, which is not a scheduled area, and as such, the cause of action took place at Kothagudem and not at Lakshmidevipalli. He placed reliance on the same judgment contending that if cause of action arose in the schedule area, then only the civil court has no jurisdiction, but, in the present case, the cause of action arose at Kothagudem, and hence, the judgment has no application to the facts of the present case. He also placed reliance on Nagarjuna Grameena Bank and others v. Medi Narayana and others (2012 (11) Scale 312) and Nalazala Srinivas Rao v. S. Lokeswara Rao ( 2006 (4) ALD 672 ) in support of his contention. 5. In the present case, the respondent clearly mentioned in the plaint that the suit promissory note was executed at Kothagudem and that the cause of action arose at Kothagudem town. Kothagudem town which is not in scheduled area. In view of the fact that Kothagudem is not a schedule area, it cannot be said that the Principal Senior Civil Judge, Kothagudem had no jurisdiction to pass a decree. Since the suit promissory note was executed and the cause of action arose within the jurisdiction of town area, the passing of decree and issuance of salary attachment warrant cannot be said to be null and void. Even in the judgment of the Apex Court relied on by the learned counsel for both parties, it was observed that when the cause of action arose within the scheduled area, then only the decree passed by the Civil Court is a nullity. Even in judgment reported in Nagarjuna Grameena Bank and others v. Medi Narayana and others (1 supra), the Apex Court held that the decree passed by the Civil Court was nullity in relation to cases where whole cause of action arose in the Scheduled Areas. 6. Even in judgment reported in Nagarjuna Grameena Bank and others v. Medi Narayana and others (1 supra), the Apex Court held that the decree passed by the Civil Court was nullity in relation to cases where whole cause of action arose in the Scheduled Areas. 6. In view of above, it cannot be said that Principal Senior Civil Judge at Kothagudem cannot be said to be has no jurisdiction to pass a decree. Though it is stated that the petition filed under Order IX Rule 13 CPC for setting aside the ex parte decree is pending, but on that ground, it cannot be said that the decree cannot be executed. The petition filed under Order IX Rule 13 CPC can be decided by the trial Court on merits without being influenced by any observations made in this revision since the observations made herein are only for the purpose of deciding the revision petition. Therefore, in view of my aforesaid discussion, I do not find any infirmity or illegality in issuing salary attachment warrant warranting interference of this Court by exercising the restricted revisional jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, and hence, the civil revision petition is liable to be dismissed. 7. Accordingly, the Civil Revision Petition is dismissed. No costs. 8. As a sequel thereto, Miscellaneous Petitions, if any, pending shall stand closed.