High Court · 2025

2 3. Sriram Chits Pvt.Ltd., Rep. by its Sr.Manager-cum-GPA Holder' Shivam Branch, Hyderabad. ...RESPONDENTS Petition under Adicle 226 of the Constitution of lndia praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High Court may be pleased to issue an appropriat€ writ or direction, more particularly a Writ in the nature of Mandamus declaring the warrant issued dt.27.04.15 in EP No.118 of 2015 in ABR/CF No.245 of 2014 as illegal, arbitrary and un-constitutional and consequently set aside the award dated 25.8.2014 passed in ABR/CF No 245 of 2014 on the file of 2'd respondent

1.A. NO:1OF 2015(wP P. NO: 1 8585 0F 15) Petition under section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in theaffidavitfiledinsupportofthepetition,theHighCourtmaybepleasedtoissue interim directions to stay all further proceedings in EP No.118 of 2015 in ABR/CF No.245 of 2O14 on the file of Principal Junior civil Judge, RR District against the award dated 25.8.2014 on the file of 2nd respondent pendin-q disposal of the writ petition. t.A. O:2OF 2O'15(WPM P. NO: 35394 OF 20 1s) Petition under section 151 CPC praying that in the circ:umstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to extend the interim order dated 7.5.2015 passed in the above writ Petition. Counsel for the Petitioners: SRI RAJAGOPALLAVAN TAYI Counsel forthe Respondent No.1: GP FOR REVENUE Counsel for the Respondent No.3: MAHESWARA RAO KUNCHEAM The Court made the following: ORDER THE HONOURABLE SRI IUSTICE N.V.SHRAVAN KUMAR WRITPETITIO N No.141.82 of 2015 ORDER: This writ petition is filed seekrng the following prayer: "ta declare the uarrant isswd dt 27.04.1,5 in EP No.778 of 201'5 in ABRrcF No.245 of 2014 as illegal, arbitrary and un-constitutional and consequently sct aside the award datrd 25.8.m1'4 passed in AB IVCF N o.245 of 2014 o n the fle of 2il reqondent."

2. Brief facts of the writ petition are that one Sri.'T.Sekhar Reddy is a subscriber of respondent No.3 in ticket No.4 in chit group SHLC 17 for a value of Rs.5 lakhs @ Rs.10,000/- per month for a period of 50 months. The said person had participated in the chit auction and by agreeing to forego an amount of Rs.1,55,000 /- ottt of chit value of Rs.5,00,000/- became the successful bidder. Thereafter, respondent No.3 paid an amount of Rs,3,45,000/- to Sekhar Reddy and the petitioners along with one Sri.Y.Chenna Reddy stood as guarantors. Sri..T.Sekhar Reddy has paid.22 installments and 23'a installment was pairl in part and thereaf ter committed default in payment to respondent No.3.

3. Further case of the petitioners is that respondent No.3 without issuing prior notice to the Petitioners, filed A.B.R/C.F No.245 of 2074 under Section 64 and 66 A of the C'hit Fund Act 1982, for recovery of Rs.2,99,906 / - along with interest and respondent No.2 without issuing any notice to the petitioners passed the award dated 25.08.2014, stating the following:- 2 , -rE "In exercise of powers anferred under Section under Section 69 of the Chit Fund Act, 1982, I do hereby order that in oiew of abooe disputant is found entitled to recooet an amount Rs.2,99,90640 along uith interest at 18% per annun, on tfu Pincipal amount of Rs.2,78,610-00 from i.e., 19-03-:).013 the datc of disputu till thr dote of realisation. The costs of the dispute is Rs.7,8L4-00 are also auarded. The dis;pute is accordingly awarded in faoour of the disputant and against the opponents No: -1 to 4 jointly and seuerally. Any other payment made shall be adjustcd after fling of the di:pute in aforesaid quantif.ed entitled a mount. The disputant shall recoaer the amount by sale of the moaable and immoaable properties, Salaries, by any other mode of execation as per law."

4. Thereafter, respondent No.3 for execution of award dated

25.08.2074 filed EP.No.118 of 2015 in A.B.R/C.F No.245 of 2014 and the Prl.)unior Civil Judge, R.R. District Court at L.B.Nagar. issued warrant dated 27.04.2015. Aggrieved by the warrant datetl 27.M.2015 in EP.No.118 of 2015 in A.B.R/C.F No.245 of 2074 and award dated

25.08.201.4 in A.B.R/C.F No.245 of 2014 this writ petiriorr is filed.

5. Leamed counsel for the petitioners submits that the respondent No.2 without taking into consideration the fact that the notices were not served on the petitioners, passed award dated 25.08.201,4 and even in the award respondent No.2 failed to observe that on which date and in which newspapers substitute notice was served. Learnecl counsel for the petitioners further submits that respondent No.3 filed E.p against the petitioners and not against the principal debtor and pray this Court to declare the warrant dated 27.04.2015 in Ep.No.1rg of 20r 5 as illegal and set aside the award dated 25.08.2014 passed in A.B.R/C.F No.245 of 3 20]4.

6. Heard and perused the material available on record

7. It is pertinent to note that the petitioners in this writ petition are praying to declare the warrant dated 27 -04.2015 in EP.No.118 of 2015 as illegal, however, the peritioners did not file a copy of the same in the material papers. That apart, the consequent prayer sought by the petitioners in this writ petition is that to set aside the award da ted

25.08.2074 passed in A.B.R/C.F No.245 of 20'1.4, on the ground that the respondent No.2 without issuing any notice had passed the award 8 It is noticed that the respondent No.2 in the award dated \ \

25.08.2014 has observed the following:- r "The case uas taken up for heaing by this Court the summons unre sent to the oppo,unt No.7 to 4 through ryrsonal seroice and by uny of Regd.post tttith acknou'ledgment due by and substifute *roice of suntntons by ruay of paper publicatiotr by the disputant company to appear tle opponents No.1 to 4 before this Court. The oVponents No.7 to 4 affur receipt of the summons are called not prexnt anil the opponents No.7 to 4 are exparte. The disputant counxl fled eoident afidauit of its Mnnagcr and exantined and ma*ed the documents as Exs.Pl to P14".

9. upon perusal of the above, it is clear that the respondent No.2 had issued notice and Ex.P10 is marked as postal acknowledgment of notice to petitioner No.1 and Ex.P11 is marked as postal retum cover of petifioner No.2. It is further nohced that the addrcss of petitioner No.1 and 2 appears to be one and the same and the leamed counsel 4 for the petitioners did not disputed the same. Inspite of notice served on petitioner No.l, the petitioners did not choose t,r appear before respondent No.2, thus, the respondent No.2 has passed the award dated 25.08.2014 in A.B.R/C.F No.245 of 201,4. Sincc the petitioners did not pursue the award proceeding diligently, the relief sought in this writ petition is not sustainable.

10. In view of the foregoing reasons, this Court oo not find any merils in this writ petition and writ petition being deroid of merits is liable to be dismissed and accordingly, dismissed. Miscellaneous applications, if any pending, s)-rall stand closed. No order as to costs //TRUE COPY// SD/-V.KAVITHA ASSISTANT REGISTRAR [r'u SECTION OFFICER To,

1. One CC to Sri Rajagopallavan Tayi, Advocate [OPUC] 2. Two CCs to Gp for Revenue, High Court for the State 01 Telangana, at Hyderabad [OUTI

3. One CC to Sri Maheswara Rao Kuncheam' Advocate [OPUC] 4 TJ GJP Two CD CoPies Sr i I I I I I i t 4f HIGH COURT DATED:0710212025 ORDER WP.No.14182 of 2015 tlE s 1 e ?.: 2-4- JUl{'1ffi' ( J c o I ov\ ji, DISMISSING THE WRIT PETITION WITHOUT COSTS

1."ddt Xr,'