The High Court · 2025

Surender Pittala, S/o.Sriramulu, Aged about 51 years, Occ. Junior Asst Lmd .C_o_!ony_Knr, R/o.H.No.9-t-229 Ne-ar Substation, Bhagathnagir, ka;-;rg;; (R2 to R4 not necessary in the CRp) ...RESPONDENTS/JDRs S & 6 lA NO: 2 oF 2025 Petition under Se :tior 1 51 CPC praying that in the circumstancers stated in the affidavit filed in s rppcrt of the petition' the High Court may be pleased to stay of all further proceedings in E P No.363/2024 in ARB No g4B of 2020' on the fileofthellAddl.Juni(rCjiviIJudgeatKarimnagar,untildisposalofthemain Revision Petitlon. Counsel for the Petitioners: Sri Praveen Bonkuri Counsel for the Respondent No' 1: Sri K'P' Vijay Kumar The Court made the following: ORDER HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K. LAKSHMAN CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.7OO OF 2o25 ORAL ORDER: Heard Mr.Praveen Bonkuri, learned counsel for the petitioners and Mr.K.P.Vijay Kumar, learned counsel for respondent No.1.

2. Respondent No.1 has filed an application under Section 64 of the Chit Fund Act, 1982, against the petitioners' and respondent Nos.2 to 4 herein for recovery of an amount of Rs.3,32,132/- along with interest at the rate of lgoh per annum before the Deputy Registrar of Chits/District Registrar, Karimnagar, vide A.R.B.No.948 of 2O2O. Learned Chit Arbitrator passed an award dated 20.03.2023 holding that the petitioners and respondent Nos.2 to 4 are jointly and severally liable to pay the said amount.

3. Therefore, respondent No.1 has frled an execution petition vide E,P.No.363 of 2024 agarnst the petitioners and respondent Nos.2 to 4 for execution of the said award. Vide impugned attachment orders all dated 20.12.2024, learned executing Court directed the Disbursing Officers of the 2 t petitioners and respondent No.2 to withhold an amrlunt of Rs.4,2o,35ti/-. Ohallenging the said orders, the pet.tioners hled the pres:nt Civil Revision Petition.

4. It is also relevant to extract Order - XXI, Ruies - 11 (2l., 48 and 48A cf the CPC and the same are as under: ')O Rule 1 1 (2) of CPC-Written application- Sarre as otherwise provided by sub-rule(l), every appU catic,n for the execution of a decree shall be in writi:rg, signed and verihed by the appiicalt or b-v somt other person proved to the satisfaction of the Collrt tc be acquainted with the facts of the case, al<l shall contain in a tabular form the followrng parti ;ulzu's, namely- (a) tJre number of the suit; (b) tl e names of the parties; (c) th e date of the decree; (d) w retl-rer any appeal has been preferred from the der:ree; (e) wiretlrr:r arry, ald (if any) what, payment or other adjur,tme:rt of the matter in controversy has been madt between the parties subsequently to the decrt e: (f) w rethr:r any, and (if any) what, previous appli:ations have been made for the execution of the decree, the dates of such applications and their resul:s; (g) tl e arnount with interest (if any) due upon l.he decree, or other relief granted thereby, together wrtl- parti,;ulars of any cross-decree, whether passed befor: or after the date of the decree sought to be 3 executed; (h) the amount of the costs (if aly) awarded; (i) the name of the person against whom execution of the decree is sought; and O the mode in which the assistance of the Court is required whether (i) by the delivery of any property specifrcally decreed; (ii) 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) by the appointment of a receiver; (v) otherwise, as the nature of the relief granted may require." "Order )O Rule 48 of CPc-Attachment of salary or allowaoces of servant of the Government or railway company or local authority.- (1) Where the property to be attached is the salar5r or a-llowances of a servalt of the Government or of a servant of a railway company or local authority or of a servart of a corporation engaged in aly trade or industry which is established by a Central, Provincia-l or State Acl, or a Government company as defined in section 677 of t}re Companies Act, f956 (1 of 1956)] the Court, whettrer the judgrnent- debtor or the disbursing officer is or is not within the local limits of the Court's jurisdiction, may order that the arnount shall, subject to provisions of section 60, be withheld from such salar5r or allowances either in one payment or by monthly installments as the Court may direct; and upon notice of the order to such oIficer as the appropriate Government may by notifrcation in the Olfrcial Gazette appoint in this behalf,- 4 .a) vrhere such salar5r or allowances are to be l,isbrrrsed within the loca-l limits to which this locit: for the time being extends, the ofhcer or- rther person whose duty it is to disburse the samt: shall withhold and remit to the Court the mor-rnt due under tlle order, or the monthll' instz[ments, as the case maY be; [b) vrhere such salary or a]lowances a-re to be Cisbrrrsed beyond the said limits, the ofhcer or cther person within those limits whose duty it is to irstruct the disbursing authority regarcling the arnount of the salary or allowalces to be disbursed shall remit to the Court the arnount due under the order, or the monthly instr ments, as the case may be, and shalt dire<;t the disbursing authority to reduce the aggregate of the amounts from time to time, to be d.isbursed by the aggregate of the amounts frorn time to time remitted to the Court. (2)Where the attachable proportion of such salar / or allowances is already being withheld an'l re mittr:d to a Court in pursuance of a previous anrl urrsat-ished order of attachment, the officer al rpointed by the appropriate Government in thr s br'half shall forthwith return the subsequent order tc the Court issuing it with a full statement of all tt e particulars of the existing attachment. (3 ) Ev,:ry order made under this rule, unless it i s re tur;red in accordance with the provisions of sub- rr. le (2) shall, without further notice or other 5 \ process, bind the appropriate Government or ttre railway compaoy or local 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 being extends and while he is beyond those limits, if he is in receipt of any salary or allowarces payable out of the Consolidated Fund of India or the Consolidated Fund of the State or the funds of a railway company or local authority or corporation or Government company in India; and the appropriate Government or the railway company or local authority or corporation or Government company, as the case may be, sha_ll be liable for any sum paid in contravention of this rule. Explanation.-In this rule, "appropriate Government" means,- (i) As respects zrny person in the service of the Centra-l Government, or any serv€rnt of a railway administration or of a cantonment authority or of the port 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 of a Government company in which any part of the share capital is held by the Central Government or by more than one State Governments or partly by the Central Government and partly by one or more State Governments, the Central Government; (ii) As respects arry other servant of the Government, or a servant of any other local or other authority, or any servant of a corporation engaged l l 6 trade or industrY which is in any estr blished by a Provincial or State act, or a sen'art of anl other Government compahy' the State G01 ernrnent." "Order ' )O , Rule - 48A' Attachment of salary or allowances of private employees'- (1) Where the pr:o scrtJr to tre attached is the sa-Iary or allowances ol- rm employee other than an employee to whom ml,: 48 applies, the Court, where the disbursing offr :er of the employee is within the local limits of the Court's jurisdiction, may order than the amount shrll, subject to the provision of section 6O' bc u.it ehel,l from such salary or allowances either in onr: pa}T nent or by monttrly instalments as the Co .rrt lnay direct; and upon notice of tJle order to su,;h clisbursing ollicer, such disbursing o{Iicer shall rerrit :o the court the amount due under the order' or -he rnonthly instalments, as the case may be' (2) Whr:re the attachable portion of such salarSr or' al1 rwartces is already being withhetd or remitted t() th, : (l:urt in pursuance of a previous ancl ur,satrshed order of attdchment, tJ'.e dlsbursing ofl icer shall forthwith return the subsequent order to th€ Court issuing it with a full statement of al ' t.h : p:u trculars of the existing attachment' (3 Evt:ry order made under this rule, unless it il; re.urnr:d in accordance with the provisions of sub' ru te (:2), sha-Il, without further notice or other- Dr ccess, hind the employer while the judgment - ,lr btors, is within the local limits to which this Codrr [o ' th e time treing extends and while he is beyonrl 7 those{imits, if he is in receipt of sa.lary or a-llowances payable out of t.I:e funds of al employer in any part of India, and the employer shall be liable for any sum paid in contravention of this rule." 5 It is also relevant to extract Section - 7I of the Chit Fund Act, 1982 and the same is as under: a7l. IMoney how recovered.-Every order passed by the Registrar or the nominee under section 6g or section 69 and every order passed by the State Government in appeal under section 7O for pa5,,rnent of any money shall, if not carried out,- (a) on a certifrcate issued by the Registrar, be deemed to be a decree of a Civil Court, and shall be executed in the same manner as a decree of such Court, or O) be executed in accordance with the provisions of any law for the t-ime 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 years from the date fixed in the order, and if no such date is fixed, from the date of the order."

6. It is also relevant to extract Sections - 126, 12a and 146 of the Indian Contract Act, 1872 and the same 8 are as u rder: "726. "Contract of guarantee", 'surety", "f,rincipal debtor' and "creditor".-A "contract of gr ararrtee" is a contract to perform the promise, or drscharge the liability, of a third person in case trf his detault. The person who gives the grarantee is cellcd the "surety"; the person in respect of rvhos': dt faul: the guarantee is given is called the "principal drbtor", and the person to whom the guarantee is gi ren Ls ca-lled the "creditor". A guarantee may b,: ei -her- oral or written." "l 28. Surety's liability.-The iiability of the suret s is co . extensive with that of the principal debtor., ur rless it is otherwise provided by the contract." '146, Co-sureties liable to coutribute equally.- - W hcre two or more persons are co-sureties for th'3 s: me Cebt or duty, either jointly or severally, anrl u.reth,:r under the salne or different contracts, artrl u' re th,:r with or without the knowledge of each olher, the co-sureties, in the absence of any' c( ntract to the contrary, are liatrle, as betweetr tl ems,:lves, to pay each an equal share of tlie whol': dt bt, or of that part of it which remains unpaid bg tL e prncipal debtor." 7 Thus, the liability of the co-surety is co- extensive uril:h that of principal debtor unless it is otherwise lrovided by the contract. The said princilrle was 9 also laid down by a Division Bench of the High Court of Judicature for the States of Telangana and Andhra pradesh at Hyderabad in Punyamurthula Venkata Viswa Sundara Rao v. M/s. Margadarsi Chit Fund Rrt. Ltd.r.

8. In Punyamurthula Venkata Viswa Sundara Raor, the Division Bench on consideration of the arguments advanced by the parties, framed the following two (02) points for consideration: I 1t whether the decree holder has to proceed against all the judgment debtors, who are guarantors, by claiming proportionate amount decreed. whether the execution Courts in which E.Ps. were filed against the present judgment debtors, who are revision petitions herein, have jurisdiction to entertain the execution petitions. 9 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 sha-ll himself issue the ' zot-t 1z1ALT 82 (D.8.) l0 certilicate :md forward the said application to the Court or revenue zrl lthority, as chosen by the decree holder' The decree holrter has an option to proceed against either the principal d:btc,r or any of the guarantors or againsr- all of them. Relerring to Section - 128 of the Indian C'lntract Act, the Didsr<tn Bench held that the liability of a srtret5r is co-extensir e tvith that of the principal debtor r.rnler;s it is otherwise lrrovided by the contract' In Madamanchi Anill Kumar v' Margadirshi

10. Chit Fund Pvt. Limited2, Division Bench of the High Court of Andhra Pradesh at Hyderabad considering ttLe said principle lair1 down by the Division Bench in Punyamurthula Venkata Viswa Sundara paqr, [t:ld that the liabilitl. ol'the sureties is joint and several' The I)ivision Bench aL ro negatived the contention raised lcY the petitione r thr:r'ein that a Recovery Certifrcate issueii by the Deputy Rt gistrar of Chits cannot be acted upon, as per Rule - 55 of the Andhra Pradesh Chit Fund Ruies' 2008 and that iLn execution is maintainable only if the recovery certihcate has been issued by the Registrar of Chitrs to the 2 c.R.p. N'o 2-l3rt ol20 I 8. decided on 05.1 I .2018 11 competent Civil Court. 1I On consideration of the aforesaid provisions and on examination of the facts of the case therein, Prattipati Srinivasa Rao v. M/s. Shriram City Union Finaace Limited3, this Court held that respondent No.1 - decree-holder cannot recover double the awarded amount from the petitioners - judgment debtors, and it is entitled for the decretal amount and interest as claimed by it from the judgment debtors. lL. As discussed above, respondent No.l had ltled the aforesaid execution petition under Order XXI Rule 48 of C.P.C. The amount awarded under the aforesaid award dated 2O.O3.2O23 in ARB No.948 of 2O2O is Rs.3,32,132/- dong with interest @ l8%o per annum on the principal amount of Rs.2,84,372/-, and the petitioners herein and respondent Nos.2 to 4 are jointly and severally liable to pay the said amount. Respondent No.1 - decree holder has frled the aforesaid execution petition against judgment debtor Nos. 1 to 6 to recover the aforesaid amount of Rs.4,20,356/- each I Common order in CRP Nos.l33 & 15l of2O23, decided on 02.03.2023 I T2 a from their salaries. Without considering the afo resaid aspects, mor e p:rrticularly, Sections 128 and 746 tf the provisions of the Indian Contract Ac and Section -7 1 of the Chit Fund Act and also the principle laid dorrrn in Punyamurth'ula Venkata Viswa Sundara Raol, Madamanchi Anill Kumar2 and Prattipati Srinivasa Rao3, the Executinti Court issued the impugned salary attachment order dated 20.1'.2.2024 in E.P. No.363 of 2024 directing the Disbursing Crffict:rs of the petitioners/JDR Nos.2 to ,1 and other judgm ent debtors to with held an amount of Rs.4,20,356/- each. Thus, by virtue of the said rsalary attachment orders, there would be recovery of an amorrnt of Rs.4,2O,356/- each from judgment debtor Nos.2 to 4 which is impermissi cle rrnder law.

13. It is also relevant to note that Section 60 of C.P.C. dea-ls ,vith the property liable to attachment anri sale in executiorr of ,lecree. Section 6O(i) ard (ia) of C.P.C. is relevant ancl rhe sarne are extracted hereunder: "i) s rlary to the extent of [the first [one thousand rupe:sl] :rnd two third of the remainderl [in execution of ar y decree other than a decree for maintenance]: 13 [Provided t]rdt where any part of such portion of the salar5z as is liable to attachment has been under attachment, whether con'tinuously or intermittently, for a total period of twenty-four months, such portion shall be exempt from attachment until the expiry of a further period of twelve months, ald, where such attachment has been made in execution of one and the same d.ecree, shall, after the attachment has continued for a total period of twenty-four months, be finally exempt from attachment in execution of tllat decreell. (ia) one-third of the salar5r in execution of any decree for maintenance." 1+'. In the light of the same, on recovery of the entire awarded amount along with interest and pend.ente fife interest, either the executing Court on its own or on the full satisfaction memo filed by respondent No. l/DHr, the executing Court can terminate the E.ir. proceedings. There is no clarity with regard to the same in the impugned orders both dated 28.12.2024. 15 . During the course of hearing, learned counsel appearing for respondent No.1 failed to get instructions from respondent No.1 with regard to the same. I I t4 The said aspects were not considered try the

15. Executing Court while passing the impugned order dated

20.12.2024 in E.P. No.363 of 2024' Therefore, the' said order is liab.e to be set aside. li . IrL the light of the aforesaid discussion, the present Cirril Revision Petition is accordingly allowed, setting aside the irrpu6ined orders all dated 20'12'2024 in E'P' No.363 of 2024 in ARB No.948 of 2O2O passed by learned II Additional .Jrrnior Civil Judge, Karimnagar' The ma1ler is remanded back to the Executing Court with a direction to consider the sand E.P. No'363 of 2024 afresh and pass appropriate trders in accordance with law includir: g the aforesaid aspectsi, provisions and principle laid down try this Court. In th : ci::cumstances of the case, there shall be no order as to cr,sts. As t. sequel thereto, miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending ir this revision shall stand closed. //TRUE COPYII To,

1. The ll Additiottal .J,"rnior Civil Judge at Karimnagar. 2. One CC to {ir Pi'aveen Bonkuri, Advocate [OPUCi '3, One CC to Sr K F'. Vijay Kumar, Advocate [OPUC] 4. Two CD Copi, rs vutPsL=@ SD/- T TIRUMALA DEVI DEPUTY REGISTRAR "i' \ .,r SECTION OFFICER -l-| l \- c c. 7 i :iri ;1,75 $1? z L) /. o , )-_ \. HIGH COURT DATED: 0710:112025