The High Court · 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 dispense with filing of the certified copy of the Order dated 2011212024 in E.P.No. 373 of 2024 in ARB.No. '1062 of 2021 passed by Learned Principal Junior Civil Judge, at Karimnagar in the interest of justice. IA 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 dated 2011212024 in E.P.No. 373 of 2024 in ARB.No. 1062 ol 2021 passed by Learned Principal Junior Civil Judge, at Karimnagar., pending disposal of the main CRP. Counsel for the Petitioner(s): SRI RAJESH BATHULA Counsel for the Respondent No.1: SRI K P VIJAY KUMAR Counsel for the Respondent No.2 to 4: The Court made the following: ORDER HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K. LAKSHMAN CML REVISION PETITION No.514 of 2o25 ORDER: Heard Sri Rajesh Bathula, learned counsel for the petitioners and Sri K.P.Vijay Kumar Goud, learned counsel for the respondent No.1. Perused the record.

2. This Civil Revision Petition is filed under Section 115 of the C.P.C. chalienging the attachment order, dated 20.12.2024 passed in tr.P.No.373 of 2024 in ARB.No.1062 of 2O2l by the learned Principal Junior Civil Judge, Karimnagar.

3. The petitioners herein are J.Dr.Nos.2, 3, 6 & 7 in E.P.No.373 of 2024 in ARB.No.1062 of 2O2l pending on the frle of learned Principal Junior Civil Judge, Karimnagar. Respondent No. t has frled an application under Section 64 of the Chit Fund Act, I9B2 uide ARB.No.1062 of 2O2l before the Chit Arbitrator/Deputy Registrar of Chits, Karimnagar, claiming an amount of Rs.4,69,9 13/- along u'ith interest @ Rs.18% p.a on the principal amount of I KL,.I C:.l?. P. N o. t'> 1 4 of 2O25 2 Rs.3.64,172/- frorn petitioners and respondent Nos. 2 to 4. The Chit Arbitrator has passed an award, dated

30.O5.2023 holding that the petitioners and respondent Nos. 2 to 4 herein are jointly and severally liable to pay the said amount.

4. Thereafter, respondent No.1 has filed E.P.No.373 of 2024 in ARB.No.|O62 of 2O2l for execution of the said award. Vide irnpugned salary attachment order, dated 2O.12.2024, the Executing Court directed the Salary Disbursement Officers of J.Dr.Nos.3 & 6 to withhold an amolrnt of Rs.3,0O,323/- each from the salary of J.Dr.Nos.3 & 6 as per Section 60 of C.P.C. after deducting standard deduction plus one thousand and 2 f 3,a of remaining gross salary and sha1l remit the balance I /3ra of salary every month from the date of receipt of the warrant. Challenging the said attachment order dated 20.12.2024, the petitioners herein hled the present revision.

5. Learned counsel for the petitioners contended that the trxecuting Court has issued similar salary KL,J C.R.P.No.514 of 2025 3 attachment orders in respect of other J.Drs. Therefore, the same is in violation of the procedure laid down under the Contract Act, Chit Funds Act, 1982 and also the principle laid down by this Court utd.e order, dated O3.O5.2O24 in C.R.P.No.1237 of 2024.

6. Whereas, Sri K.P. Vijay Goud, learned counsel for respondent No.1 lairly submitted that the impugned salary attachment order, dated 20.12.2024 issued by the Executing Court against J.Dr.Nos.3 & 6 is contrary to the procedure laid down under the Contract Act, Chit Funds Act and also the principle laid down by this Cotrrt uide order, dated 03.O5.2024 in C.R.P.No.1237 of 2024.

7. It is also relevant to extract Order - XXI, Rules - 11 (2) and 48 of the CPC and the same are as under: "XXI Rule 11 (2f of CPC-Written application- Save as otherwise provided by sub-rule(1), every application for the execution of a decree shall be in writing, signed and verified by the applicant or by some other person proved to the saLisfaction of the Court to be acquainted with the facts of the case, and shall contain in a tabular form the following particulars, namelY- -) KI,,J C.R P.N1.S14 of2025 4 (a) the number of the suit; (b) the names of lhe parties; (cl tl-re date of the decree; (d) whether any appeal has been preferred from the decree; (e| whether any, and (if any) what, payment or other adjustment of the mattcr in controversy has been made bctween the parties subsequently to the decree, (ff whether any, and (if any) what, previous applications have been made for the execution of the decree, the dates of such applications and their results; (g) the amount with interest (if any) due upon the decree, or other relief granted thereby, logether with particulars of any cross decree, whether passed before or after the clate of thc decree sought to be executed; (h) the amount of the costs (if any) awarded; (i) the name of the person against u,hom execution of the decree is sought; and fi) the mode in u,hich the assistance of the Court is re quired whether, (0 by the delivery of an]. properff specifically decreed; (il) by the attachment, or by the attachment and sale, or by the sale without attachment, of any property; (iii) by the arrest and detention in prison of any person; (iv)b5' I he appointment oI a ret.eiver; (v) otherwise, as the nature of the relief granted ma1, require." :. KI,,J C.R.P.No.514 of 2025 5 "Order XIKI Rule 48 of CPC-Attachment of salary or allorpances of servant of the Goverament or railway company or local authority:- (1) Where the property to be attached is the salary or allowances of a ser-vant of the Government or of a servant of a railway eompany or local authority or o[ a servant of a corporation engaged in any trade or industry which is established by a Central, Provincial or State Act, or a Government company as delined in section 617 of the Companies Act, 1956 (1 of 1956)l rhe Court, whether the judgment-debtor or the disbursing ofhcer is or is not within the local limits of the Court's jurisdiction, may order that the amount shall, subject to the provisions o[ section 60, be withheld from such salary or allowances either in one payment or by monthly instalments as the Court may direct; and upon notice of the order to such ofhcer as the appropriate Government may by notihcation in the Official Gazette appoint in this behalf,- (a) where such salary or allowances are to be disbursed within the local limits to which this Code for the time being extends, the ofhcer or other person whose duty it is to disburse the same shall withhold and remit to the Court the amount due under the order, or the monthly instalments, as the case may be; (b) where such salary or allou,ances are to be disbursed beyond the said limits, the officer or other person within those limits whose duty it is to instruct the disbursing authority regarding the amount of the salary or allowances to be disbursed shall remit to the Court the amount due under the order, or the monthly instaiments, as the case may be, and shall direct the K].,-I C.R.P.N1.5I 4 oJ 2025 6 disbursing authority to reduce the aggregate of the amounts from time to time, to be disbursed by the aggregate of the amounts from time to time remitted to the Court. (2) Where the attachable proportion of such salary or allowances is already bcing withheld and rcmitted to a Court in pursuance of a previous and unsatisfied order of attachment, the officer appointed by the appropriate Government in this behalf shall forthwith return the subsequenl order to the Court issuing it with a full statement ol all the particulars of the existing attachment. (3) Every order made under this rule, unless i[ is returned in accordance with the provisions of sub- rulc (2) shall, without further notice or other process, bind the appropria[e Government or the railu,ay company or loca1 authority or corporation of Government company, as the case may be, while the judgment debtor is within the local limits to which this Code for the time bcing cxtends and while he is bcyond those limits, if he is in receipt of any salary or allowances payable out of the Consolidated Fund of India or the Consohdated Fund of the State or the funds of a railvray company or local authority or corporation or Government company in India; and the appropriate Government or the railway compally or local authority or corporation or Government company, as the case may be, shall be liable for any sum paid in contravention of this rule. Explanotion.Jn this rule, "appropriate Gouemment" mean;' (i) As rcspects any person in the service of thc Central Government, or any servant o[ railway. administration or of a a cantonment authority or of the port I t. KL,J C.R.P.No.514 oJ 2O25 7 authority of a major port, or any servant of a corporation engaged in any trade or industry which is established by a Central Act, or any servant o[ a Government company in which any part of the share capital is held by the Central Government or by more than one State Covernmenls or partly by the Central Government and partly by one or more Statc Governments, the Central Government; (ii) As respects any other servant of the Government, or a servant of any other local or other authority, or any servant of a corporation engaged in any trade or industry which is established by a Provincial or State act, or a servant of any other Government company, the State Government." a. It is also relevant to extract Section - 71 of the Chit Fund Act, 1982 and the same is as under: "71. Mouey how recovered:-trvery order passed by the Registrar or the nominee under section 68 or section 69 and every order passed b5r the State Government in appeal under section 7O for payment of any money shall, if not carried out,- (a) on a certihcate issued by the Registrar, be deemed to be a decree of a Civil Court, and shal1 be executed in the same manner as a decree of such Court, or (b) be executed in accordance rvith the provisions of any law for the time being in force for the recovery of amounts as arrears of land revenue: Provided that no application for execution under clause (b) shall be made after the expiry of three -l KL,J C.R.P.No.S14 of 2025 E years from the daLe hxed in the order, and if no such date is hxed, from the date of the order."

9. It is also relevant to extract Sections 126, t2a and 146 of the indian Contract Act, lB72 and the same is as under: "L26. "Contract of guarantee", "surety", "principal debtor" and "creditor":-A "contract o[ guarantee" is a contract to perform the promise, or discharge the liability, of a third person in case of his default. The person who gives the guarantee is called the "surety''; the person in respect of rvhose default the guarantee is given is called the "principal debtor", and the person to whom the guarantcc is given is called Lhe "creditor". A guarantee may be either oral or written." " 128. Surety's liability.-The liability of the surety is coextensive with that of the principal dcbtor, unless it is other-wise provided by the contract." *146. Co-sureties liable to contribute equally.-Where two or more persons are co- sureties for the same debt or duty, either jointly or sevcrally, and whether under the samc or different contracts, and whether with or without the knorvledge of each other, the co-sureties, in the absence of any contract to the contrary, are liable, as between themselves, to pay each an equal share of the whole debt, or of that part of it which rcmains unpaid by the principai debtor."

10. Thus, the liability of the co-surety is co-extenslve with that of principal debtor unless it is otherwise KLr{ C.R.P.No.514 of 2O25 9 provided by the contract. The said principle was also laid down by a Division Bench of the High Court of Judicature for the States of Telangana and Andhra Pradesh at Hyderabad 1n Pungamurthula Venkata Viswa Sundara Rrro a. M/s. Margadarsi Chit Fund Pttt, Ltd..l 1 1. The aforesaid relevant provisions would reveal that for realization of the amount covered under the arbitration award, respondent - decree holder has to file an application under Order - XXI Rule 11 (2) of CPC. Accordingly, respondent No. t had filed the aforesaid execution petition vide E.P.No.299 of 2024. L2. In Punyarnurthula Venkata Viswa Sundara Rao (sr-rpra 1) the Division Bench on consideration of the contentions advanced by the parties, lramed the following two (02) points for consideration: i. rvhether the decree holder has to proceed against all the judgment debtors, who are guarantors, by claiming proportionaLe amount decreed. ii. whether the execution Courts in which tr.Ps. were filed against the present judgment debtors, ' totT rlr nLT 82 rD.Btr/ I I KI,.J C.R.P.No.5l1 of 2O25 l0 who are revision petitioners herein, have jurisdiction to entertain the execution petitions.

13. On consideration of the provisions of the Chit Fund Act and the CPC, the Division Bench held that the course that has to be followed by the decree holder is to make an application to the Registrar for execution, to be forwarded to the proper authority at the option of the decree holder and the Registrar shall himself issue the certificate and forward the said application to the Court or revenue authority, as chosen by the decree holder. The decree holder has an option to proceed against either the principal debtor or any of the guarantors or against all of them. Referring to Section - 128 of the Indian Contract Act, the Division Bench held that the liability of a surety is co-extensive with that of the principal debtor unless it is otherwise provided by the contract.

14. In Madatnanchi Anill Kumar v. Margadarshi Chit Fund Put. Limite@, Division Bench of the High Court of Andhra Pradesh at Hyderabad considering the I c.R.P No.2 ].18 ol'2018. dccided on 05 ll.20 t8 KL,.] C.R.P.No.514 of 2O25 said principle laid down by the Division Bench in Punyamurthula Venkata Viswa Sundara Rao (supra), held that the liability of the sureties is joint and several. The Division Bench also negatived the contention raised by the petitioner therein that a Recovery Certificate issued by the Deputy Registrar cf Chits cannot be acted upon, as per Rule - 55 of the Andhra Pradesh Chit Fund Rules. 2OO8 and that an execution is maintainable only if the recovery certihcate has been issued by the Registrar of Chits to the competent Civil Court. L5. On consideration of the aforesaid pro-,zisions and on examination of the facts of the case therein, 1n Prattipati Srinivosrr Rao u. M/s. Shriram Citg Union Finance Limiteds this Court held that the decree-holder cannot recover double the awarded amount from the judgment debtors, and it is entitled for the decreetal amount and interest as awarded by the learned Chit Arbitrator. \ Common order in CRP Nos.I l3 & 1,5 t of 2021. decided on 02.03.20211 KL,J C.R.P.No.514 of 2025 t2

16. As discussed above, learned Chit Arbitrator has passed a\ rard, dated 30.05.2024 in ARB.No. 1062 of 2021 holding that the petitioners and respondent Nos.2 to 4 are jointly and severally liable to pay the said amount. Therefore respondent No.1 is entitled for recovery of the aforesaid amount along with interest @ lBTo from all the J.Drs, including the petitioners herein. Respondent No.1 filed the aforesaid execution petition vicle E.P.No.373 of 2024 for recovery of the said amount lrom petitioners and respondent Nos.2 to 4. Without considering the said facts, more particulariy, Sections 128 & 146 of the provisions of the Indian Contract Act and Section 71 of the Chit Fund Act and also the principle laid down in Punyamurthula Venkata Viswa Sundara Rao (supra 1), Madamanchi Anill Kumar (supra 2) and Prattipati Srinivasa Rao (supra 3), the learned Executing Court has issued the impugned salary attachment orCer, dated 20.12.2024 in tr.P.No.373 of 2024, directing the Salary Disbursing Officers of J.Dr.Nos.3 & 6 to withhold an amount of Rs.3,00,323/- as stated supra. Thus, by virtue of the i I I I l I l KL,J C.R.P.No.514 oJ2O25 13 said salary attachment orders, there would be recovery of more than the awarded amount from the petitioners herein (Rs.3,0O,323 x 7= Rs.21,O2,26t), which is impermissible under law. Therefore, the said attachment order is in violation of the procedure laid down under the Contract Act, the Chit Funds Act and also the principle laid down by this Court uide order, dated 03.05.2024 in C.R.P.No. 1237 of 2024. L7. It is also relevant to note that Section 60 of C.P.C. deals with the property liable to attachment and sale in execution of decree. Section 6O(i) and (ia) of C.P.C. is relevant and the sarne are extracted hereunder: "i) salary to the extent of [the first [one thousand rupees]l and two third of the remainder] [in execution of any decree other than a decree for maintenance]: [Provided that where arry part of such portion of the salary as is liable to attachment has been under attachment, whether continuously or intermittently, for a tota-l period of twenty-four months, such portion 3hatt le exempt from attachment until the expiry of a further period of twelve months, and, where such attachment has been made in execution of one and the 1 KL,J C.R.P.No.514 of 2025

4. .ii t4 same decree, shall, after the attachment has continued for a total period of twenty- four months, be hnally exempt from attachment in execution of that decree]]. (ia) one-third of the salary in execution of any decree for maintenance."

18. In the light of the same, on recovery of the entire awarded amount along with interest and pendente lile interest, either the executing Court on its own or on the full satisfaction memo filed by respondent No. 1/DHr, the executing Court can terminate the E.P. proceedings. There is no clarit5r with regard to the same in the impugned orders both dated 28.12.2024.

19. During the course of hearing, learned counsel appearing for respondent No.1 failed to get instructions from respondent No.1 with regard to the

20. The said aspects were not considered by the Executing Court while passing the impugned order, dated 20.12.2024 in E.P.No.373 of 2024. Therefore, the said order is liable to be set aside. KL,.] C.R.P.No.514 of 2025 15

21. The present Civil Revision Petition is accordingly a-llowed. The impugned order, dated 20.O12.2024 passed in E.P.No.373 of 2024 in ARB.No.1062 of 2O2l by the learned Principal Junior Civil Judge, Karimnagar, is set aside and the Executing Court shall decide E.P.No.373 of 2024 in ARB.No. 1062 of 2021 strictly in accordance with law considering the aforesaid provisions and principle laid down by this Court. In the circumstances of the case, there shall be no order as to costs. As a sequel, the miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending in this Civil Revision Petition shall stand closed. To, //TRUE COPY// SD/- K. AMMAJI DEPUTY REGISTRAR Ubx. SECTION OFFICER 1 2 J 4 Principal Junior Civil Judge, at Karimnagar One CC to SRt RAJESH BATHULA Advocate [OpUC] One CC to SRt K p VtJAy KUMIAR Advocate [OPUC] Two CD Copies SS/gh I A6.- S TA7 A: $+qEs I t o :Q HIGH COURT DATED:1710312025 ORDER CRP.No.514 ot 2025 ALLOWING THE C.R.P. WITHOUT COSTS D / ,/t ,)

1./