Neelaveni Mohan v. Nunavath Anasuya Naik
Court: High Court for State of Telangana
Bench: N.TUKARAMJI
Judgment date:
Case summary
High Court for State of Telangana judgment dated 2026-02-04. Neelaveni Mohan v. Nunavath Anasuya Naik. Read the judgment and case details on LawSphereX.
Judgment text
IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA // AT HYDERABAD WEDNESDAY, THE FOURTH DAY OF FEBRUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENry SIX PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE N. TUKARAMJI CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO:4670 OF 2025 Petition under section 1 15 of CPC, Aggrieved by the Order daled 22-10- 2025 in E. P. No. 17 of 20(19 in O. S. No. 82 of 2016 passed by the Senior Civil Judge at Karimnagar. Between: Neelaveni Mohan, S/o Narsaiah, Aged about 45 years, Occ. AR Head Constable, R/o Qr. 52, Police Head Quarters, Opposite to Bus Stand, Kanmnagar. ... Petitioner/ JDR AND Nunavath Anasuya Naik, Wo Shankar Naik, D/o Jalapathi Naik, age 55 years, Occ. Social Worker, R/o H. No. 8-1-553, Kattarampur, Karimnagar Town & District. ...
RespondenUDHR lA NO: 2 OF 2025 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 Stay of all further proceedings including attachment of salary of the petitioners in pursuance of the Order daled 22-10-2025 in E. P. No. 17 of 2019 in O. S. No. 82 of 2016 passed by Learned Senior Civil Judge at Karimnagar, pending disposal of the main CRP. Counsel for the Petitioner: Mr. RAJESH BATHULA, Advocate Counsel for the Respondent: NONE APPEARED The Court made the following: ORDER IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE N. TUKARAMJI CIVIL REVISION PETITION N0. 4670 0F 2025 DATE: 04. 02. 2026 Between: Neelaveni Mohan ... Petitioner AND Nunavath Anasuya Naik ... Respondents ORDER: -l-his Civil Revision Petition is filed calling into question the legality and propriety of the salary attachment order dated 22 10. 2025 passed in E P. No.
17 ot2019 in O'S. No. 82of 2016 by the learned Senior Civil Judge, Karimnagar. on 2 Heard Sri Rajesh Bathula, learned counsel appearing behalf of the Petitioner 3. The principal grievance urged by the petitioner is that the the statutory position, Executing Court, without due consideration of an opportunity issued a salary atlachment warrant without affording for the to the petitioner to offer his explanation. Learned counsel -----t petitioner further submits, fairly, that there is another attachment warrant already pending against the petitioner and that he is willing he to satisfy the decreetal dues after some time. On these grounds, and prays warrant for for setting aside the impugned attachment appropriate directions. 4. I have perused the material available on record. 5. The primary contention of the petitioner is that the attachment warrant was issued without service of notice. The record, however, discloses that a decree was passed by the trial Court on 08-07. 2017 in O. S. No.
82 of 2016, and pursuant thereto' the Execution Petition was filed in March, 2019 seeking attachment of the petitioner's salary. Nonetheless, the aftachment order was passed by the Executing Court on 22. 10. 2025. 6. Having regard to the relevant dates and the statutory scheme under Order XXI Rule 22 of the Code of Civil Procedure' which mandates issuance of notice only where an execution application is filed beyond the prescribed two year period, this Court is of the considered view that the contention of the petitioner that the Execution Petition itself was filed beyond time is not borne out by the material on record. The mere date on which the attachment warrant J was issued cannot, by itself, attract the requirement of notice under Order XXI Rule 22 CPC. Accordingly, no patent illegality or procedural impropriety is found in the issuance of the attachment warrant by the Executing Court 7.
However, liberty is reserved to the petitioner to approach the Executing Court for appropriate relief or directions regarding the manner and mode of compliance with the decree, in accordance with law. 8. With the above observation, this Civil Revision Petition is disposed of. There shall be no order as to costs. Consequently. Miscellaneous Petitions, if any pending, shall stand closed Sd/- T. SRINTVASA REDDY ASSISTANT REGISTRAR //TRUE COPY// \ SECTION OFFICER To, I 1 The I Senior Civil Judge at Karimnagar. 2 One CC to Mr RAJESH I BATHULA, Advocate [OpUC] 3. Two CD Copies "^@;, HIGH COURT DATED: 0410212026 l ORDER CRP. No. 4670 of 2025 Accordingry, this civir Revision petition is Disposed of. , I I I I I I i i I ,I I t O l l
Source: High Court for State of Telangana. Dataset: Dattam Labs. CC BY 4.0. Text extracted automatically; compare with the source PDF for layout and accuracy.