APHC010359352019 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH MONDAY, THE THIRD DAY OF MARCH TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE THE HONOURABLE JUSTICE DR V R K KRUPA SAGAR CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO: Between: Malleda Appalaswamy Yanduva Yinduva Venkata Rao Counsel for the Petitioner: 1. M/S BHASKARI ADVOCATES Counsel for the Respondent: 1. IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) MONDAY, THE THIRD DAY OF MARCH TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE JUSTICE DR V R K KRUPA SAGAR CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO: 3235/2019 AND Yanduva Yinduva Venkata Rao ...RESPONDENT Counsel for the Petitioner: M/S BHASKARI ADVOCATES Counsel for the Respondent: IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH [3365] THE HONOURABLE JUSTICE DR V R K KRUPA SAGAR ...PETITIONER ...RESPONDENT 2 The Court made the following Order: Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner, who appeared online and made necessary submissions. 2. The decree holder is the revision petitioner in this revision. 3. The suit in O.S.No.99 of 2017 was a money decree. The decree holder initiated execution by filing E.P.No.22 of 2019 under Order XXI Rule 48 CPC seeking attachment of salary of the Judgment Debtor, who happens to be an employee in APSRTC. 4. After due hearing, in the order dated 28.08.2019, the learned Execution Court/Senior Civil Judge, Bobbili, directed attachment of salary to a tune of Rs.6,800/-. The decree holder raised a challenge in this revision stating that while arriving at the attachable amount of salary, the Executing Court failed to follow the law and gave deduction concerning personal loan and alleged medical needs of the wife of the judgment debtor, which it has not supposed to. However, the very fair submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that the judgment debtor would be superannuating from service in the next two months. 5. Perused the material on record. 6. It is seen that even after considering the merits in the matter, the possible amount is calculated, it would not come to great avail of 3 the decree holder as much larger amounts are still overdue, despite the attached portions of salary. 7. In such circumstances, as the law permits the decree holder to initiate simultaneous execution petition through other means without causing detriment to the merits made available in this revision, this Court considers that the order impugned cannot be called as one against the procedure. 8. Under these circumstances, this Civil Revision Petition is dismissed, granting liberty to the petitioner/decree holder to initiate simultaneous execution petition or execution petition subsequent to pending execution. There shall be no order as to costs. As a sequel, Interlocutory applications, if any, pending shall stand closed. _________________________ Dr. V R K KRUPA SAGAR, J Dated: 03.03.2025 MDP