1 APHC010356262016 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3606] FRIDAY, THE 17th DAY OF JULY 2026 PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE PURUSHOTTAM KUMAR CHINTALAPUDI CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO: 2764/2016 Between: 1. A SREENIVASULU @ ERKALA SREENIVASULU, S/O ERIKALA VEERANNA, R/O D NO.4/1089, PAPAMPETA, BEHIND ICE FACTORY, ANANTHAPUR-515001 ...PETITIONER AND 1. RAGIRI SUNKANNA, S/O R SATENNA, D NO.15/1596, VIJAYANAGAR COLONY, TADIPATRI TOWN, ANANTHAPUR DISTRICT. 2. THE DRAWING OFFICER, KOTA STREET, GOOTY, ANANTHAPUR DISTRICT (R-2 NOT NECESSARY) ...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 toto set aside the order dt.21.11.2015 passed in EP No.66 of 2014 in O.S No.6 of 2012 on the file of Jr Civil Judge, Tadipatri. IA NO: 1 OF 2016(CRPMP 2121 OF 2016 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 - IA NO: 2 OF 2016(CRPMP 2972 OF 2016 2 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 stay the monthly attachment of the salary (daily wages) of the petitioner pursuant to the proceedings in EP No.66/2014 in OS No.6/2012 on the file of Junior Civil Judge, Tadipatri pending the present CRP IA NO: 5 OF 2016(CRPMP 9395 OF 2016 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 Counsel for the Petitioner: 1. HARISH KUMAR RASINENI Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. VENKATA RAMANA PENUGONDA The Court made the following: 3 THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE PURUSHOTTAM KUMAR CHINTALAPUDI CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO: 2764/2016 ORDER: This revision petition is filed aggrieved by the orders passed in E.P.No.66 of 2014 in O.S.No.6 of 2012, dated 21.11.2015, wherein the learned trial Judge has recorded as “Amount received. E.P. is closed”. 2. The only ground urged by the learned counsel for the petitioner Sri Harish Kumar Rasineni is that the trial Court failed to appreciate that the petitioner is a cook and working as a daily wage worker in the B.C. Welfare Hostel in Gooty and that ordering of attachment of Rs.4,000/- per month from the daily wages of the petitioner is not contemplated under the procedure of law. Learned counsel fairly stated that the trial Court recorded that amount was received and E.P. is closed. 3. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner. No representation from the respondent. Perused the record. 4. The respondent /D.Hr has initiated the execution of the decree in recovering the amount against the revision petitioner by attaching salary of the revision petitioner on the premise that he is an employee and has regular income. The record would show that in the proceedings under the E.P., on 21.11.2015, the learned Judge recorded that “Amount received. E.P. is closed”. Thus, it is evident that the execution petition is no more on record. 5. This would show that the amount claimed under the execution has been recovered. When the execution is completed, the present revision seeking the relief to set aside the order dated 21.11.2015 does not require for consideration. 4 The amount is already recovered effecting the execution. There is no grievance from the respondent / D.Hr against closure of execution petition. In such circumstances, the relief to set aside the order dated 21.11.2015, in my view cannot be considered. 6. The objection of the revision petitioner primarily on the premise, as the petitioner is working as a Cook as a daily wage worker in the B.C. Welfare Hostel, wages on daily work cannot be attached. This Court is unable to accept the arguments advanced by the learned counsel. The reason is on perusal of the grounds, ground No.9 reads that, the Executing Court failed to consider the record and the salary certificate issued by the B.C. Hostel Welfare Officer. The salary certificate is filed. It would show the petitioner is not a daily wage labour, in fact, he is getting monthly remuneration for his work. In such a case, when employer pays remuneration on monthly basis, the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 provides scope to attach his salary. The said document of salary certificate invariably shows that the wages paid to the petitioner is not daily, but it is in the form of salary as an employee. Moreover, since the execution petition itself is closed as amount is received and the ground urged that the revision petitioner is a daily wager do not support the documents placed by the revision petitioner, the interference in the impugned order challenging the order of the learned trial Judge, does not require. 7. Therefore, I am of the view that the present revision petition do not sustain and liable to be dismissed. 5 8. Accordingly, the Civil Revision Petition is dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. Interlocutory Applications, if any pending, shall stand closed. _____________________________________ PURUSHOTTAM KUMAR CHINTALAPUDI,J Dated: 17.07.2026 ARR 6 127 THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE PURUSHOTTAM KUMAR CHINTALAPUDI CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO: 2764/2016 Dated: 17.07.2026 ARR