Hanumantha Rao Venkatesh, S/o v. hanumatha Rao, aged about

1. M/s. Margadarsi Chit Fund Pvt. Limited, Represented By its Foreman/Branch Manager, Mr. Adusumilli Bala Krishna, S/o. A. Ramachandra Rao, Reg Office at Nampally, Hyderabad. ....RESPONDENT IDECREE HOLDER 2. K. Janald Ramaiah, S/o K. Nagabhushanam Occ- Pro Kumar Engineer Works, H. No. 8-711 BHEL, Ancillary Unit, R C. Puram, Hyderabad.

3. M. Venkateswarlu, S/o. M, Tirupathaiah, Occ- Pr,r. PNR Enterprises, H. No. 25-3511.2, Ramachandra Reddy f,lagar,R C Puram, Hyderabad. 4. M. Sriramulu, S/o. M. Lakshmaiah, Occ- Pro S V Engeeniring Woks,Shop No. 6-R, AP. Scooter-L, Patancharu lvledak District. 5. Hanumantha Rao Venkatesh, S/o. V hanumatha Rao, aged about 70 years, Occ- Nil, H. No. 2cl4, Sree Ram Nag:ar Colony, Beside Padmavathi Apt, Near Allwyn, Patancharu, Sangareddy District (Respondent No.2 to 5 are not necessary parties) ...RESPONDENT/RESPONDENl' NO.1/JDR 1 TO 4 The Court made the following: COMMON ORDER i I I I I I I I L t. I l : I I t I 7 THE HONOURABLE SMT. JUSTICE P.SREE SUDHA CwIL REVISION PETITION Nos.6O7 and 615of2o25 -^coI4I4oN"gBDE& - C.R.P.No.607 ol 2025 is {iled by the petitioner/J.Dr.No.4 against the Order dated 21.lO.2O24 in E.P.No.38 of 2019 in ABR.No.189 of 2016, passed by the learned Principal Senior Civil Judge, Sangareddy.

2. C.R.P.No.615 ot 2025 is filed by the petitioner/J.Dr.No.5 against the Order dated 2 I . lO.2O24 in E.P.No.32 of 2019 in ABR.No.189 of 2016, passed by thc learned Principal Senior Civil Judge, Sangarcddl'.

3. In E.P.No.32 of 2O 19, the Principal Olficer and General Manager o[ thc dccrce holdcr Cornpanv stated that thcy ltled E.P for recovery of Rs.5,35,2 I8i against J.Drs.No.3 & 5 seeking attachment o[ their movablcs and they are also hling another E.P against J.Dr.No.4 seeking for a|tachment of his immovable properry and thus rcquested [or issltance of warrants for attachment o[ movablcs of J.Drs.No.3 & 5.

4. In E.P.No.38 ol 20 19. tltr' l)rincipal Olficer and General Manager o[ thc clecrcr-' hoklcr Con.rparr-\' statcd that they filed E.P l I 1 l I I 2 against J.Dr.No.4 seeking attachment of his imn rovable property for recovery of Rs.4,83,237/- with costs and inrs1g51. and they are also hling another E.p against J.Drs.No.3 & 5 seeking attachment of their movables. [t is also stated thrt J.Drs.No. I to 5 are jointly and severally liable to pay the said :: mount.

5. The main contention of the learned (] runsel for the petitioners herein is that the Award dated - 4.O.1.2017 was passed by the Deput5r Registrar of chits/Arbitr:r or at Medchal- Malkajgiri District, but the Execution peritions v,ere filed before [he learned Principal Senior Civit.Judge, Sanga.edclv, who has no jurisdiction to entertain the said petitio rs. Since, the property attached is situated within the territorip I jurisdiction of the learned Senior Civil Judge, Sangarerlcir. filing of the execution petitions before the conccrned Court is propcr, and as such the argument of the learned Counscl for thc pctitioners cannot be accepted. Another contention raisccl by thc learned Counsel is that there are five J.Drs, but thc Chir .und Company has filed execution petitions onl-r' againsr thc revision petitioners-J.Drs.4 & 5 and that the propert_\. ol thc J.Dr.4 was already mortgaged, and as such it cannot be ag:rrn attached lor recovery of loan amount as per thc au,ard under ARB.No. lg9 of 2016 dated 24.O3.2O17, in' which rhc pcritionc.s herein r,r,ere 3 directed to deposit Rs.4,83,237 l- @) 18 o/o per annum along with costs. Since there are more than one schedule, Execution Petition can be filed by the decree holder against anyone of the J.Drs, on that ground it cannot be said that execution petitions are not maintainable. Though the contention of the learned Counsel for the petitioners is that property was already mortgaged, it was only for an amount of Rs. IO,O0,OOO/- and that the property has the second charge for the decreetal amount of the D.Hr, as the value ol the property is more than Rs.20,0O,000/-. Therefore, thc argument of the petitioner's Counsel is not tenable. They havc not challenged the Order of the Arbitrator, as such now thc! cannot point out the anomalies in the order in E.P procccdings. ExecuLion Court cannot go beyond the decree. Any'rvay, J.Dr.No.4 is at liberty to recover the amount from the J.Dr.No. I Thcir contention that respondent No. 1/D.Hr even without issuing noticc to the J.Dr. l, hled Execution Petitions against rhcm and sought for attachment of their immovable property is not tenable, as in the affidavit it was clearly stated that clccrcc holder/Company has filed another E.P along with thc prcscrit- E.[, against J.Drs.3 & 5, seeking attachment of their movable property and they are making efforts to collect amount from other J.Drs also. I I 4 Thereforc, this Court finds no merits in the present revision petitions and accordingly they are liable to be di smissed.

6. In the result, the present Civil Revisit,n Petitions are dismissed conhrming the Order of the tri rl Court dated

21..1O.2024 passed in E.P.N9s.32 and 38 of 2Ol ) in ABR.No.189 of 2016. There shall be no order as to costs. Miscellaneous petitions pending, if ar ry, shall stand closed. I To, //TRUE COPY// SD/- K. AMMAJI DEPUTY REGISTRAR CTION OFFICER \ 1 The Prl Senior Civil Judge at Sangareddy 2 One CC to SRl. PEDDANNA UPPALA Advocaie [OPUC] 3 One CC to SRl. P DURGA PRASAD Advocate OPUCI 4 Two CD CoPies TL/gh I I ) I i I i I t I I I I t i i I I I I I I I I I 1 HIGH COURT DATED:04/03/2025 ! --._:. a\- ( "1a ,.: 1IJUilI M ';. i I >/. ..r." -^ ,;ja / -i COMMON ORDER CRP.Nos.607 & 615 of 2025 DISMISSING C.R'Ps 6 ,W