ORDER : Challenging the order dated 25.06.2013 passed in E.P. No.32 of 2013 in O.S. No.678 of 2006 by the III Senior Civil Judge, City Civil Court, Secunderabad, this revision petition is filed. 2. The said petition was filed under Order XXI Rule 46 of CPC seeking a direction to the garnishees to deposit the E.P. amount. The Executing Court, while allowing the said petition, issued show-cause notice to the garnishees stating as to why the suit amount shall not be recovered from them as they failed to deposit the amount withheld by them in I.A. No.2010 of 2006. 3. Heard and gave anxious consideration to the submissions of the learned counsel for the petitioner/garnishee No.1 and the learned counsel appearing for the first respondent/DHR. 4. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that even by the date of receipt of the order in I.A. No.2010 of 2006, no amount pertaining to the JDR was lying with the petitioner/1st garnishee and though the said fact was brought to the notice of the Executing Court, yet the Executing Court ordered for payment of amount that is due by the JDR and in fact, DHR has to take steps for recovery of the amount due from the JDR but without doing so, the DHR is pressurising the garnishees to pay the amount and only in case any amount pertaining to the JDR is lying with the garnishee, said amount can be ordered to be deposited into the Court and in this case, the petitioner/1st garnishee is not in custody of any amount pertaining to the JDR but the Executing Court ordered the petitioner/garnishee to deposit the amount and if the said amount has to be deposited, it has to be from the pocket of the petitioner/garnishee and therefore, aggrieved by the order of the Executing Court, the petitioner/garnishee approached this Court for redressal. The learned counsel also stated that even the prohibitory order was not served to the garnishees. 5. Seriously opposing the said submissions, the learned counsel for the respondent No.1/DHR contended that the prohibitory order was served upon all the garnishees and the same is evident at para 6 of the order of the Executing Court and therefore, the contention in that regard is unsustainable. 5. Seriously opposing the said submissions, the learned counsel for the respondent No.1/DHR contended that the prohibitory order was served upon all the garnishees and the same is evident at para 6 of the order of the Executing Court and therefore, the contention in that regard is unsustainable. The learned counsel further stated that if no amount was lying with the garnishees, they ought to have appeared before the Court and would have submitted the same but they kept quiet and now they have taken false pleas and indeed they permitted the JDR to withdraw the amount, which was lying with them and now they are playing tactics and therefore, this revision petition is not maintainable. 6. A keen perusal of the material available on record discloses that the Executing Court ordered the petitioner herein to deposit Rs.3,50,000/-, which is lying with it into the Court as per the order dated 15.02.2013. The version of the petitioner/1st garnishee is that no amount is lying with it pertaining to JDR. 7. Order XXI Rule 46-A to 46-I CPC envisages the procedure to be followed for realisation of the debt by the DHR through the garnishee of the JDR. Suffice to mention in this petition that as per Rule 46-B where the garnishee does not pay into the Court, the amount due from him to the JDR forthwith and also fails to appear and show-cause when a notice is issued to him, the Court may order the said garnishee to comply with the terms of such notice and on such order, execution may proceed as though such order was a decree against him. Thus, when the garnishee fails to show-cause, the Executing Court has the power to proceed against the garnishee as if the decree that was passed against the JDR is a decree against the said garnishee. However, as per the Rule 46-C where the garnishee disputes liability, the Court has to take up the said issue and determine the liability of the garnishee and said issue has to be tried as if it were an issue in the suit and only upon the determination of such issue, the Court should proceed against the garnishee. 8. In the case on hand, the petitioner/garnishee is disputing his liability on the ground that he is not in possession of any amount which belongs to the JDR. 8. In the case on hand, the petitioner/garnishee is disputing his liability on the ground that he is not in possession of any amount which belongs to the JDR. Therefore, the Executing Court has got every necessity to frame an issue in that regard, to enquire into the said issue by allowing the parties to adduce evidence and then to pass a speaking order with regard to the liability of the garnishee and thereafter has to proceed for realisation of the amount. Hence, in the light of the said legal position, this Court is of the view that the order rendered by the Executing Court is unsustainable and therefore, is liable to be set aside. 9. In the result, this revision petition is allowed. The order dated 25.06.2013 passed in E.P. No.32 of 2013 in O.S. No.678 of 2006 by the III Senior Civil Judge, City Civil Court, Secunderabad, is set aside. The Executing Court is directed to take up the issue with regard to the liability of the garnishee in the light of the observations regarding the legal position that were made and decide the liability of the garnishee and then to proceed. The Executing Court is further directed to make all endeavour to dispose of the petition, preferably within a period of two months, from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. Miscellaneous applications, if any pending, shall stand closed. No order as to costs.