Date of reserved for orders : ---- Date of pronouncement : 29.06.2026 Date of uploading : APHC010092852024 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3331] MONDAY, THE 29th DAY OF JUNE 2026 PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE SUBBA REDDY SATTI CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO: 751/2024 Between: 1. S.B. SOWJANYA,, W/O NISHANTH, AGED ABOUT 35 YEARS R/AT FLAT NO. 436, D-BLOCK, ARK TOWERS, MARUTI NAGAR, MIYAPUR, HYDERABAD AND WORKING AS SUB-ORDINATE STAFF, STATE BANK OF INDIA, FLAT NO. 101, SRINIKETH, KONDAPUR, NR CHIRE C PUBLIC SCHOOL, GOWTHAMI ENCLAVE, HYDERABAD. ...PETITIONER AND 1. MD SAZAD, S/o Basheer Jan, aged about 46 years R/at D. No. 371, pt Floor, Gali Street, Tirupati Town and Mandal, Tirupati District, Andhra Pradesh. ...RESPONDENT 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 The above-named petitioners beg to present this Memorandum of Civil Revision Petition against the order dated 18.12.2023 in E.P. No. 14 of 2022 IN S.T.C. No. 2 of 2017on the file of the Senior Civil Judge at Puttur, IA NO: 1 OF 2024 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 to suspend the order dated 18.12.2023 in E.P. No. 14 of 2022 IN S.T.C. No. 2 of 2017 on the file of the Senior Civil Judge at Puttur till the pendency of this Memorandum of Civil Revision Petition and pass Counsel for the Petitioner: 1. A S C BOSE Counsel for the Respondent: 1. SINGARAJU MAHASWETHA VARMA The Court made the following: ::ORDER :: The Judgment Debtor (J.Dr.), filed the above revision petition against the order dated 18.12.2023 passed in E.P.No.14 of 2022 in S.T.C.No.2 of 2017 on the file of the learned Senior Civil Judge, Puttur. 2. Heard Sri A. Harsha, learned counsel representing Sri A.S.C. Bose, learned counsel for the petitioner and Ms. Singaraju Mahaswetha Varma, learned counsel appearing for the respondent. 3. The respondent herein, being the plaintiff, filed a private complaint against the revision petitioner herein since the cheque bounced. Later, the matter was referred to Lok Adalat. The Lok Adalat passed an award on 22.04.2018. The operative portion of the said Award reads as follows: “The accused further agreed to pay the remaining balance of Rs.11,00,000/- (Rupees Eleven lakhs only) in six equal installments within 6 months from today on or before 22.10.2018. The accused shall obtain the receipt from the complainant after payment of each installment payment to him. The complainant agreed to return the promissory notes which is executed by the husband of the accused in favour of wife of the complainant which is in his hand after reveipt of the total amount Rs.11,00,000/- in six installments. If the accused failed to pay the agreed amount within the stipulated time, the complainant is at liberty to recover the entire cheque amount of Rs.15,00,000/- (Rupees Fifteen lakhs only) with interest at 24% per annum from the date of cheque i.e.,18.6.2015.” 4. Since the revision petitioner/J.Dr. failed to comply with the terms of the Award passed by the Lok Adalat, the respondent herein filed E.P.No.14 of 2022 under Order XXI Rule 48 of the Code of Civil Procedure (C.P.C). The Executing Court, by order dated 18.12.2023, allowed the E.P. and ordered salary attachment of the J.Dr., subject to the provisions of Section 60 of the C.P.C. 5. Initially, an interim order was granted by this Court on 03.05.2024, with a condition to pay an amount of Rs.5,00,000/- by the revision petitioner into E.P. account on or before 21.06.2024. Accordingly, the said amount was deposited. 6. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the Execution Petition was filed for an amount of Rs.40,56,003/-, which is contrary to the Award passed by the Lok Adalat on 22.04.2018. He would also submit that the petitioner is receiving only Rs. 39,905/-after deductions. 7. On the other hand, Ms. Singaraju Mahaswetha Varma, learned counsel for the respondent, would submit that the revision petitioner failed to comply with the Award passed by the Lok Adalat. Since the revision petitioner is an employee, the Execution Petition was filed under Order XXI Rule 48 of C.P.C., seeking attachment of his salary before the Executing Court. The Executing Court passed an order attaching the salary of the revision petitioner. 8. The point for consideration is: “Whether the order dated 18.12.2023 passed in E.P.No.14 of 2022 in S.T.C.No.2 of 2017 on the file of the learned Senior Civil Judge, Puttur, suffers from any illegality?” 9. As seen from the order of the Executing Court, the respondent herein filed S.T.C.No.2 of 2017 under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. The matter was settled before the Lok Adalat. The respondent/D.Hr. agreed to an amount of Rs.11,25,000/- towards full and final settlement. The revision petitioner/J.Dr., immediately paid an amount of Rs.25,000/- and agreed to pay Rs.11,00,000/- in six instalments. The Award referred to supra contains a default clause. However, the revision petitioner/J.Dr. failed to comply with the Award. Later, the Execution Petition was filed. In the Execution Petition, the respondent/D.Hr. examined as P.W.1 and got marked Ex.P1, the Award passed by the Mandal Segal Services Committee, Puttur. 10. The Executing Court, in its order, recorded that the revision petitioner/J.Dr. is drawing a gross salary of Rs.70,708.97/- per month and after deductions, she is drawing a net salary of Rs.39,905/-. The Executing Court, by assigning proper reasons, passed the order under revision, as per the provisions of Section 60 of C.P.C. There is no illegality or irregularity in the order passed by the Executing Court warranting interference. 11. Given the facts and circumstances of the case, this Court does not find any merit in the civil revision petition, and the same is liable to be dismissed. Accordingly, the Civil Revision Petition is dismissed. The amount deposited by the J.Dr. to the credit of E.P., the D.Hr., is at liberty to withdraw the same. No order as to costs. As a sequel, pending miscellaneous petitions, if any, shall stand closed. ___________________________ JUSTICE SUBBA REDDY SATTI Date: 29.06.2026 TVN Whether the order is : Speaking Yes/No / Reasoned Yes/No Reportable Yes/No / Non-Reportable Yes/No 72 THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE SUBBA REDDY SATTI CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.751 OF 2024 Date: 29.06.2026 TVN