L. Narasimha Reddy, J.
1. The decree holder in E.P. No. 164 of 2003 in O.S. No. 27 of 2003 on the file of the learned Senior Civil Judge, Miryalaguda, Nalgonda District, filed this civil revision petition, aggrieved by the order, dated 5-10-2005.
2. The petitioner filed the suit against the respondents herein, for the relief of recovery of a sum of Rs. 4,78,188/-. She also filed I.A. No. 147 of 2003 under Order 38 Rule 5 C.P.C. for attachment of certain amount, lying with the District Registrar of Chits. The LA. was ordered on 27-2-2003. The suit was ultimately decreed on 8-9-2003. Since the decree was not complied with by the judgment-debtors, she filed E.P. No. 164 of 2003. The petitioner invoked Rules 46 and 52 of Order 21 C.P.C, with a prayer to call for the amount attached, through the order in LA. No. 147 of 2003. The respondents did not oppose the application. However, the executing Court dismissed the E.P., on the basis of a letter, dated 23-7-2004, said to have been addressed by the District Registrar of Chits.
3. Sri L. Prabhakar Reddy, the learned Counsel for the petitioner, submits that once the amount was attached under Order 38 Rule 5 C.P.C., the executing Court ought to have called for it and ensured that the decree is complied with. He contends that there was no justification on the part of the executing Court, in acting upon the letter addressed by the District Registrar of Chits.
4. Though the respondents are served with notice, they have not chosen to enter appearance.
5. It is matter of record that the suit filed by the petitioner against the respondents herein was decreed and before that, the amount lying with the District Registrar of Chits was attached, through an order passed in LA. No. 147 of 2003. The attachment subsisted through out. No objection was raised either by the respondents herein or by the District Registrar of Chits.
6. The Executing Court dismissed the E.P., on the basis of a letter, dated 27-3-2004, said to have been addressed by the District Registrar of Chits. The petitioner had made available a copy of the said letter. It was addressed to the Assistant Government Pleader, Miryalaguda. The Office of the District Registrar of Chits is stationed at Nalgonda. No formal pleading was made before the executing Court. It is not understandable as to how an executing Court acted upon such -a private communication between the District Registrar of Chits and the Assistant Government Pleader. It is rather unfortunate that the executing Court took the contents of the said letter as gospel truth and thereafter, dismissed the O.P. Such an approach cannot be countenanced.
7. Once there existed an attachment before judgment ordered under Order 38 of Rule 5 C.P.C., the invariable consequence, in the event of the suit being decreed, is that the attached property must be brought before the executing Court. It is thereafter that any plea, in the form of any claim petition, can be entertained, and not otherwise. Even assuming that the letter addressed by the District Registrar of Chits can be treated as a pleading, the fact remains that none had spoken to it. The letter cannot be accorded a greater status than a claim petition under Rule 58 of Order 21 C.P.C., which, in turn, is required to be treated as a suit. By its very nature, the contents of any pleading in a suit can be taken into account, if only spoken to by a person, who files it. Viewed from any angle, the order under revision cannot be sustained.
8. Hence, the civil revision petition is allowed and the order under revision is set aside. The executing Court shall proceed with the execution, duly calling for the amount and taking further steps, in accordance with law. There shall be no order as to costs.