The High Court · 2025

1. M/S. Shriram Chits Pvt. Ltd, Rep by G.PA. HolderMr. N, Satheesh, S/o. N. Papaiah, Age 37 years, R/o. Himayath Nagar, Hyderabad -500029

2. Mrs. B. Padma, Wo. B- Bhaskara Rao, Occ: Business, R/o. H. No.4-13, Sri Srinivasapuram, Gurramguda, Saroor Nagar Mandal, Ranga Reddy District 3. [\rlrs. S. Ramesh Chander Sadhana, Wo. S. Susheel Chandra, Occ: Head Clerk R/o. H.No. 15-17, P and T Colony, Dilsukh Nagar, Hyderabad. 4. Mr. T. Sudhir Babu, S/o- T. Muni Swamy, Occ Senior Asst., 0/0 Deputy Commissioner (CT), Charminar Division, Gagan Vihar, Nampally, Hyderabad 5. Mr. L. Puma Chandra Rao, S/o, L. Suryanarayana, Occ Superintendent, 0/o. MPDO Office, Bibi Nagar, Yadadri District. (Respondents 2 to 5 are not necessary parties in c.R.P.) ...RespondenUDecree Holder lA NO: 1 OF 2025 Petition under Section '1 51 CPC praying that in the crrcumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court n ay be pleased to siay of all further proceedings including the impugned Order dalerl. 2- 112-2024 in E.p. NO 214 of 2018 in A.A/CF NO 76 of 2012 on the fite of The tion,bte I Senior Crvil Judge City Civil Court Hyderabad lA NO: 2 OF 2025 Petition under Section 151 cPC praying that in the ci-cumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to vacate the interim order dated 28102/2025 granted in cRp 230 of 2oz5 passed by this Honorable Court Counsel for the Petitioner: SRl. G ALLABAKASH Counsel for the Respondent No.1: K S SAI PAVAN Counsel for the Respondent No 2 to 5:NOT NECESSARY PARTIES The Court made the following: ORDER HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE RENUKA YARA Civil Revision Petition No.29O of 2021o ORDER: This revision petition is Iiled by the petitioner/judgment debtor No.4 aggrieved by the order passed by the learned I Senior Civil Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad in tr.p.No.214 of 2018 in AA/CF.No.76 of 2Ot2, dated 02. t2.2O24.

2. Heard Mr. G. Allabakash, learned counsel for the revrsion pe titioner and Mr. K. S. Sai pavan, learned counsel for the respondent No. 1

3. The Execution Petition has been filed under Rule 141 (2) of Civil Rules of Practice and Order 21, Rule 1l of Code of Civii Procedure to issue wa-rrant of attachment of salary against the petitioner (Judgement Debtor No.4) herein while not proceeding against respondent Nos.2 to 5 (Judgment Debtor Nos.1 to 3 and 5) only. Vide impugned docket order dated 02.12.2024, the learned I Senior Civil Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad ordered for issuance of salary attachment warrant against the petitioner herein. i:2i i

4. In grounds of revision, it is pleaded that the impugned order rs to attach the sa1ar1., of the petitioner for im amount of Rs.7,43,382/-. Sard attachment order has becn passed even though respondent No. 1 / Decree holder did not file an application for recovery of decreetal amount to ttt: Registrar of Chits for issuance of recovery certificate an<l r'ealization of decreetal amount. Only when such an appiicatiorr is filed, the Regrstrar of Chits would issue certificate of recovery to competent Court. Without considering this asp{)crt, the sa1ar1. attachment warranl r.l,as ordered to be issue 1 against the petitioner contrarr,/ to Rule 52 of A.P (Telangale$ Chit Fund Rules, 2O08. The respondent No.1 is claiming t('tial amount of Rs.22,30, I46 I from the pe titioner and respondent Nos.4 ald 5 for arr amount of Rs.7,43,382/- each. It is alleged that by recovering such amount from the petitioner arrcl respondent Nos.4 and 5, in effect, the respondent No.1 is recrtvering three times the amount due under the chit. It is a-1so pl:aded that the arnount has to be recovered from ali the Judgment debtors i.e. petitioner and respondent Nos.2, 4 and 5 ins;tead of the petitioner a-lone. As such, prayed that the impugred order be set aside. w I l I I I I i1 3

5. The learned counsel for the revision petitioner relied upon the order of this Court in C.R.P.No.1659 of 2025, dated

02.O5.2O25 at paragraph No.12, wherein, reference is made to the case of Madamanchi Anil Kumar u. Margadarshi Chit Fund Put. Ltd. {C.R.P.No.233B of 2018, decided on 05.11.2018} about considering the principle laid down by the Division Bench in Pungamurthula Venkata Vtsua Surudara Rao u. Margadarsi Chit Fund Put. Ltd. {2017 (3) ALT 82 (D.8.), wherein, it is held that the liability of sureties is joint and several. Further, it is held that the contention of the petitioner that Recovery Certificate issued by the Deputy Registrar of Chits cannot be acted upon as per Rule 55 of the Andhra Pradesh Chit Fund Rules, 2008 and the same has been negatived holding that Execution Petition is maintainable. Further, the learned counsel for the revlslon petitioner referred to the order of this Court in C.R.P.No.2733 of 2022, wherein, it is heid that the decree holder can execute his decree against all the judgment debtors in equal proportion

6. Having regard to the rival contentions, it is seen that this Court has already held in C.R.P.No.1659 of 2025 that a 4 Recovery Certilicate issued by' the Deputy Registnrr of Chits can be acted upon as per Rule 55 of the Andhra Prarl::;l-t Ohit Fund Rules, 2008 and lhat an Execution Petition is rnaLntarnable. It is also a point to be noted that the Governmee, h:rs issued G.O.Ms.No.26O Revenue (Registration I), datl:,1 1 I . 10.20 16 authorizing the Assistant Registrars and Depr,rl,r Registrars of Chits in respective jurisdictions for the purp(,se of issuing Recovery Certificates which forms basis for fiJirrg llxecution Petitions before the competent civil courts. Lastly. as per Section 128 of the Indian Contract Act, 181 2 , in a loan transaction, the liability of sureties or guarant(rrs u.l-ren joint and several, the decree holder cat-l proceed agairrsrt any one or some or all the sureties/ guarantors. 7 . In the instant case, respondent No.1's cr>ntr:ntion is that respondent Nos.2, 4 and 5 are not in service and therefore, salary attachment carnot be sought. It is only the petitioner who is still in service against whom attachment ol sa1ary can be sought and therefore, such a relief was sought in the E.P and it is also granted. Since liability of sureties or guarantors is joint and several, respondent No.1/Decree holder i:r at libert5r to 't- r- .r/ i I I +ajffi ,. j, '/ 5 choose to proceed against one or few or all the judgment debtors i.e. respondent Nos.2, 4 ar'rd 5 and the petitioner herein

8. In vier.r, of the foregoing discussion, this Court does not see any infirmitv in the impugned order passed by the learned I Senior Civil Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad in E.P.No.214 of 2O1B in AA/CF.No.76 of 2012, dated 02.12.2024 ald therefore, the revision petition is Iiable to be dismissed. In the result, the Civil Revision Petition is dismissed. No

9. As a sequel, the miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending in this Civil Revision Petition shall stand closed. SD/. K. BHAVANI SWAMY ASSISTANT REGISTRAR //TRUE COPY// SECTION OFFICER To,

1. The I Senior Civil Judge,City Civil Court,Hyderabad 2. One CC to SRl. G ALLABAKASH, Advocate [OPUC] 3. One CC to SRl. K S SAI PAVAN ,Advocate [OPUC] 4. Two CD CoPies RM/gh € HIGH COURT DATED:20/08/2025 I ORDER CRP.No.290 ot 2O25 I I ! I I ! -aitt f i8 SI.4 rr ,t J o () 2I t,lol/ 295 \,'r \: .\':,(lr,^y-r\\ \-.-_-_ - -- CIVIL REVISION PETITION IS DISI\{ISSED /ut{