The High Court · 2025

Sri. Munigala Prasanna Kumar, S/o, Karunakat, ;:T:1:::t'::: Business, R/o. H.No. 2-5-12311 , Flat No-401, Pinninti Nilayam, B.K. Reddy Colony, Nakkalagutta, Hanamkonda. Smt. Tudi Rupavathi, D/o. Narsimhulu, Age. 58 Years Occ. School Asst R/o. H.No. 2-5-124. Hat No-40'1, Pinninti Nilayam, B.K.Reddy Colony, Nakkalagutta. Hanamkonda. Sri. Mandala Rama Chandraiah, S/o Mailajah, Age.40 Years. Occ. Business, R/o H.No. 20-135/A, Gollagudem, Gudur, Mahabubabad. Sri. Dharmarapu Venkataiah, S/o Sailu, Age. 56 Years Occ. School Asst R/o.H.No.5-60, sarlapalem, Thorrur. Mahabubabad. Smt. Banka Spandhana, Dio, Naga Bhushanam, Age. 32 Years Occ. Business, R/o. H.No. 6-1-3'1 , VDOs Colony, Khanapuram, Khammam. ...RESPONDENTS/ J.DT.NOS 1 tO 5 lA NO: 3 OF 2024 Petition under Section 1 5'l CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to stay the operation of the salary attachment order dt.o4-12-202i rassed in E.p.No. 598 of 2023 lN AA/cF/No. 563 of 2022 on the file of learned Il I ddt. Junior civit Judge Hanamakonda, pending disposal of the revision. Counsel for the Petitioner SRI. MADIRAJU I RABHAKAR RAO Counsel for the Respondent.No.i SRI N AMARNAI' I The Court made the following: ORDER THE HONOURABLE SMT. JUSTICE RENUKA YARA CIVIL RE VISION PETI TION No. ll4E of 2024 ORDER: Heard Sri Madiraju prabhakar Rao, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri N. Amamath, leamed counsel for respondent No. l. perused the entire record.

2. The Civil Revision petition is filed aggrieved by the order passed by the leamed II Additional Junior civil Judge at Flanamkonda, (,Executing Court'), in E.P.No.598 of 2023 in AA/CF.trtO.563 of 2022, dated 04.t2.2023

3. The brief facts of the case are that respondent No.2 herein i.e., Munigala Prasanna Kumar subscribed to chit with respondent No. 1 herein/decree holder and respondent Nos.3 to 6 and the petitioner herein are guarantors. Due to default comrnitted by rcspondcnt No.2, who is original chit subscriber the lnatter was presentcd befbre the Deputy Registrar of chits, warangar, vide AA/cF/No.563 of 2022, wherein an order is passed to recover the total amount of Rs.3,97,04g/- with interest at 18%o per annum on the principar amount from the petitioner as well as respondent Nos.2 to 6 jointly and severally. On the same day, Recovery Certificate was issued by the Deputy Registrar of Chits and the same came I{Y.J CRP ll48 2024 for execution before the Principal Junior Civil Judge 'r Haumakonda' which was then presented before the E'xecuting Courl 'l-he Executing Court passed the impugned order dated 04 '12 '2021 and a:: passed salary attachment order on the same date against the petitioner b1 deducting first Rs.1,000/- and 2/3'd of remaining amount from salary ol b,e petitioner is exempted and attached remaining 1/3'd amount to remit he same to the Court as per Section 60 of the C.P'C' Due to the impug red order' on a monthly basis Rs.15,000/- is deducted from the salary I ' the petitioner' Aggrieved by the same, the present Civil Revision Petitior s preferrcd' ln the grounds ol revision, it is pleaded that the :;r lary attachrrent 4. order was passed mechanically without issuing notice to I e pctitioncr and only when salary attachment order was served on [l t employcr'' thc petitioner learnt about the impugned order' Further' it i:' plcaded that the procedure under Section 71 readwith Rule 55 of the Chi Fund Act' 1982' was not fbllowed and therefore, the order of salary attaclr r':nt obtained by respondent No.l herein is against the law' It is emphasizt:r that the leamed Deputy Registrar ol' Chits, Warangal, issued Recove+' ' ':diflcate under Section 7 I dated 19.05.2023 and on the same date ori ;inal award was passed i.e., on 19.05.2023 and such conduct is illegal :.rd arbitrary and against the principles of natural justice' Lastly, it is rleaded that the 2 , T learned Executing Court failed to appreciate that respondent No. I did not exhaust remedies against the principal subscriber ol chit and proceeded RY,J cRP 1148 2024 against the petitioner, who is one of the guarantor

5. Learned counsel for the petitioner argued that no notice was issued to the petitioner by the Deputy Registrar of Chits, Warangal, before passing order dated 19.05.2023 and the notice which was served by way of newspaper publication in Prajapaksham daily newspapcr is not widely circulated i.e., in effect, the order was passed against the petitioner without his knowledge and the same amounts to violation of principles of natural justice. It is further argued that the award as well as the Recovery Certificate, which was issued under Section 7l read with Rule 55 of the Chit Funds Act, 1982, were both passed on the same day. This shows that procedure contemplated under Rule 55 of the Chit Funds Act, 1982, is not implemented. lt is conceded that being a guarantor, the petitioner is jointly and severally liable. However, respondent No. I has initiated recovery proceedings oniy against the petitioner, who is judgment debtor No.6 and recovery of an amount of Rs.15,000/- per month from his salary was ordered on monthly basis. Such a recovery is causing financial difficulty to the revision petitioner. Therefore, it is prayed that the impugned order may 3 RY.J crRP 1t48 2024 be set aside so that the matter can be heard afresh be i ,re the Executing - Court for recovery in smaller amounts.

6. Leamed counseI for respondent No.l arguerl thal there was absolutely no inegularities committed while passing the i npugned order as the execution petition was filed within three months o - passing of award and therefore, there is no need to give notice before pas;rng of the salary attachment order. Only when the execution petition is I led after lapse of two years of passing of award, there is need to give notic : in the execution petition before passing an order of attachment. Comin : to the passing of award without notice to the petitioner, it is argued thiLt Lhe procedure is followed by the Deputy Registrar of Chits, Warangal, ar d in case there is any lapse in such procedure, the award has to be chall: rged by filing an appeal. While so, the petitioner herein has not preferred r ny appeal against the award passed by the Deputy Registrar of Chi s, Warangal, AA/CF/NO.563 of 2022. Without challenging the award, only the attachment order is challenged in the present Civil Revis on Petition. It is argued that seen from any angle there are no infirmities ir the order passed by the Executing Court, which cannot go beyond scope c1 the decree

7. Having regard to the rival contentions, it is seen hat the petitioner did\not challenge the award passed by the Deputy Ii..11istrar of Chits, 4 , i- RY,J cRP tt48 2024 Warangal, in AA/CF.AtrO.563 of 2022 dated 19.05.2023 and also the Recovery Certihcate dated 19.05.2023 issued under Section 7l read with Rule 55 of the Chit Funds Act, 1982. The petitioner has challenged the attachment order passed by the Executing Court. Firstly, the Executing Court did not commit any irregularity in ordering attaching as execution petition was filed within two years of passing of the award by the Deputy Registrar of Chits. Secondly, the Executing Courl has to confine itself to the implementation of the award passed and cannot go into the lapses that occurred if any in the proceedings issued by the Deputy Registrar of Chits, l Warangal. Lastly, Executing Court has passed the attachment order by meeting all the ingredients of Section 60 of the C.P.C. i.e., Rs.1,000/- is deducted from the salary then 213'd is deducted and attachment of Rs. 15,000/- per month is ordered from remainin g I l3'd of the salary Without challenging the award passed by the Deputy Registrar of Chits, Warangal, in AA/CF/NO.563 of 2022, the petitioner who is jointly and severally liable to pay the amount to be recovered would not have any locus standi to challenge the attachment order. No fault can be found on the part of the Executing Court for passing of the attachment order without issuing notice to the petitioner, as notice is mandatory only ln case execution petition is filed after expiry of two years of passing of the award. 'fhe rerief abour reduc: ,:;:":; ;*:: attachment order, the ,u cR?-lt4s-i;/ "' -!'! ::";" ;.".;;:; : T:H",:::. t when there is no passing impugne. ''" Executing me cannot be interfered *, *t "*a-o'' ''" with l1'this court. o' g. rn the resurt, the civir o^., .-''urcrr€r€d impugned order passed AAlcFAro.56 3 of 2022,1v costs. Miscerun.or. ,oo,,lll -'ivil Revision Petifion is d' the Executing court ed 04'12'2023 'n"'t There cations, if anypending, shalj tand closed. ," ," *. ::: ,: ",', ttt"' confinning //TRUE COPYII ,AS .,o*iftBiSyRl,A I I tlseCTION OFFICER T o J. The ll Additional Junior ." ., :." ; .T ff ::sRr " ;;; ;;ffi:lJ lTffrXffiffi:r: Advocate lopucj N AMARNATH rvo* e' [opUc, TUPSL {k 6 i , : i { ( i o.J t * l.i-B 20 26 * )l l. I !;l HIGH COURT DATED:1411112O25 ORDER CRP.No.1148 ot2024 DISMISSING THE C.R,P. 6*fd \k_-" 6frrP' €