APHC010542382022 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3457] WEDNESDAY,THE ELEVENTH DAY OF MARCH TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY SIX PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE HARINATH.N CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO: 2149/2022 Between: 1. PATTULA VENKATA SAIBABA, S/O SRI SEETHAMBARAM, HINDU, AGED 57 YEARS, WORKING AS TEACHER, Z.P.HIGH SCHOOL, MANCHILI VILLAGE, ATTILI MANDAL, WEST GODAVARI DISTRICT. ...PETITIONER AND 1. VELAGALA NAGI REDDY, S/O.SATYANARAYANA REDDY, HINDU, AGED 52 YEARS, R/O. VEDURUPAKA SAVARAM, RAYAVARAM MANDAL, EAST GODAVARI DISTRICT. 2. THE HEAD MASTER, Z.P. HIGH SCHOOL, MANCHILI VILLAGE, ATTILI MANDAL, WEST GODAVARI DISTRICT. ...RESPONDENT(S): Petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India,praying that in the circumstances stated in the grounds filed herein,the High Court may be pleased to begs to present this Memorandum of Grounds of Revision efore this Hon'ble Court against Ordering of attachment of the salary of the petitioner in E.P.No.1 of 2022 in O.S. No.91 of 2015 of the Court of the Senior Civil Judge, Ramachandrapuram. East Godavari District, by way of Orders dt.01- 09-2022. Aggrieved by the said Orders of the attachment of the salary of the Petitioner, he prefers the following among the other. IA NO: 1 OF 2022 Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased 2 Stay of all further proceedings of Orders dt.01-09-2022 passed in E.P.l of 2022 in O.S.No.91 of 2015 of the Court of the Senior Civil Judge, Ramachandrapuram, East Godavari District, including the deducting of the salary of the petitioner, and grant such other relief or reliefs which this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper under the circumstances of the case. IA NO: 1 OF 2026 Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased may be pleased to Direct the learned Senior Civil Judge, Ramachandrapuram, East Godavari District, to release and pay the 50% amount deposited by the Respondent/Petitioner to the credit of O.S. No. 91 of 2015(approximately Rs. 2,18,364/- in favour of the Petitioner/Respondent no.l i.e. Velagala Nagi Reddy and Pass Counsel for the Petitioner: 1. P RAJESH BABU Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. SATHI BHANU SATHVIK REDDY The Court made the following: 3 Order:- The petitioner is aggrieved by the order passed in E.P. No.1 of 2022 in O.S. No.91 of 2015, whereby the learned Senior Civil Judge, Ramachandrapuram, had directed the attachment of the salary of the petitioner for satisfaction of the decreed amount. The petitioner had suffered a decree and was directed to pay an amount of Rs.4,30,000/- together with interest. No appeal was preferred by the petitioner against the said decree. 2. The respondents have filed E.P. No.1 of 2022 seeking attachment of salary and claiming an amount of Rs.5,53,833/-, which includes the interest amount. Aggrieved by the said order, the present C.R.P. has been filed. 3. This Court, while admitting the C.R.P., directed the petitioner to deposit 50% of the decreed amount including costs of the suit to the credit of the suit, which order was complied with, and this Court, vide order dated 28.01.2026, permitted the respondents to withdraw the amount deposited by the petitioner. 4. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the trial Court erred in passing the decree without considering the contention of the petitioner and, as such, submits that the order attaching the salary of the petitioner is detrimental to the interests of the petitioner. 5. The learned counsel appearing for the respondents submits that the suit was decided on merits and any appeal on the legal issues ought to have been raised before the appellate Court. Though the suit was decreed on 4 04.04.2017, the petitioner has so far not preferred any appeal, and the respondents have no other option except to seek attachment of his salary. 6. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and the learned counsel appearing for the respondents. Perused the record. 7. The petitioner admittedly has not filed any appeal against the decree. Therefore, the petitioner cannot agitate the merits of the decree in E.P. proceedings. That apart, no valid grounds are raised for interfering with the well-considered and reasoned order of the trial Court. 8. On these considerations, this Court is not inclined to interfere, and the order of the trial Court is upheld. 9. Accordingly, this Civil Revision Petition is dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. As a sequel, miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, shall stand closed. ____________________ JUSTICE HARINATH.N 11.03.2026 PNS