The High Court · 2025

3. Smt. Valapadasu Praveena, Wo. Srinivas, Age. 43 Years, Occ. Senior Asst in lncome Tax Department, Warangal, R/o. H-No. 11-26-195, Near Vartha Office, Warangal ...PETITIONERS/JDr.No.3,4 & 6 AND 1 Sri Sai Anjana Chit Funds Telangana Pvt Ltd., Hanamkonda Branch, Rep by 2 J 4 R 6 7 B Legal Manager, Sri K.Raj Kumar, S/o.Laxmaiah. smt. Matyata Manasa, wo, Pradeep Ase. 31 Yrr, o"J:tE:[:HE['l'.^i:l 3- 49, Vallabh Nagar, Narsampet, Warangal Smt. Panthagani Varalaxmi, Wo, Bhaskar, Age.47 Years, Occu. Conductor in TSRTC, R/o. H.No. 134-197, Maftewada, Warangal. Sri. Sriram Raju,, S/o. Ramchander, Age. 51 Years, Occ. Head Constable, Rl/o. H.No. 16-10-1035, Shivanagar, Warangal. Nimmala Ramprasad, S/o.Veeraiah, Age- 51 Years, Occ. Senior Asst in Panchayath Raj Department, R/o. H. No.4-5-8 ,Kothur Jenda, Hanmakonda Sri. Salendra Suresh, S/o.Sarangapani, Age 36 Years, Occ. Pvt Employee, R/o. H.No. 2-29011, Mallampalli Road, Narsampet, Warangal., Sri Dameruppla Karunakar, ,S/o.Narasaiah, Age. 42 Years, Occ. Pvt Employee. PJo. H.No. 3-39, Sangem, Warangal Sri. Malyala Pradeep, S/o. Ekambram Age- 39 Years, Occ. Business. R/o. H.No. '13-4-197, Mattewada, Warangal, C/o. H.No. 349, Vallabh Nagar, Narsampet' warangal ...RES'.NDENTS/J.Dr.No.1,2,s & 7 to 1o lA NO: 2 OF 2024 Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the c i cumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court rr ry be pleased to stay the operation of the salary attachment order dt. 1110112024 1 assed in E.P.No. 622 of 2023 lN AA/CF/No. 512 of 2022 on the file of learned lV /\ Idl. Junior Civil Judge Hanamakonda, pending disposal of the revision. Counsel for the Petitioners : SRl. MADIRAJU PRABHTI (AR RAO Counsel for the Respondents No.l : SRI N AMARNATH The Court made the following: ORDER i I I I I I I I I THE HONOT]RABLE SMT. JUSTICE RENUKA YARA CIVIL REVISION PETIT ION No.ll49 of 2024 ORDER: Heard Sri Madiraju Prabhakar Rao, leamed counsel for the petitioners and Sri N. Amamath, leamed counsel for respondent No' I Perused the entire record.

2. The Civit Revision Petition is filed aggrieved by the docket order passed by the leamed IV Additional Junior Civi[ Judge at Hanamkonda, ('Executing Court'), in E.P.No.622 of 2023 in AA/CF/NO 5l2 of 2022, dated I 1.01.2024.

3. The briet facts of the case are that respondent No 2 herein i'e', Matyala Manasa subscribed to chit with respondent No.l herein/decree holder and respondent Nos.3 to 8 and the petitioners herein are guarantors. Due to default committed by respondent No.2, who is original chit subscriber the matter was presented before the Deputy Registrar of chits, Warangal, vide ANCF|No.5 12 of 2022, wherein an order is passed to recover the total amount of Rs.12,01,774l- with interest aL l8o/o per annum on the principal amount from the petitioners as well as respondent Nos.2 to 8 jointly and severally. on the same day, Recovery certificate was issued by the Deputy Registrar of chits and the same came for execution before ttre Executing Court. The Executing Court passed thc irnpugned docket RY,J cRP tt49 2024 order dated ll .Ol .2024 and also passed salary attacl r rent order on the same date against the petitioners. Aggrieved by the san r. the present civir Revision Petition is preferred.

4. [n the grounds of revision, it is pleaded that thc ;alary attachment order was passed mechanica,y without issuing notice to r re petitioners and only when salary attachment order was served on _l e employer, the petitioners leamt about the impugned order. Further, it i pleaded that the procedure under Sccriorr 7l read with Rule 55 of the chi Fund Act, r9g2, was not fo'owed and therefbre, the order of salary attac, nent obtained by respondent No' I herein is against the raw. It is emphasiz: r that the reamed Deputy Registrar of ('rrits. warangal, issued Recovery )ertificate under Section 7 t dated l1 .04.2023 and on the same date ori :inal award was passed i.e., on 17.04.2023 and such conduct is illegal ard arbitrary and against the principles of natural justice. Lastly, it is rls6ds6 that the leamed Executing Courr failed to appreciate that respon<r, nt No.l did not exhaust remedies against the principal subscriber of chi and proceeded against the petitioners, rvho are some of the guarantors. 5 Leamed counsel fbr the petitioners argued that no l, tice was issued to the petitioners by thc Deputy Regisrrar of Chits, \! rangal, before passing order dated 17.04.2023 and the notice which was :;r rved by way of 2 "/' RY,J cF-P tt49 2024 newspaper publication in Prajapaksham daily newspaper is not widely circulated i.e., in effect, the order was passed against the petitioners without their 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 tead 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. It is conceded that being guarantors, the petitioners are jointty and severally liable. However, respondent No.1 has initiated recovery proceedings only against the petitioners, who are judgment debtor Nos.3, 4 and 6 and recovery from their salary was ordered on monthly basis, Such a recovery is causing financial difficulty to the revision petitioners. Thcrefore, it is prayed that the impugned order may be set aside so that the matter can be heard afresh before the Executing Court for recovery in smaller amounts.

6. Leamed counsel for respondent No.l argued that there were absolutely no irregularities committed while passing the impugned order as the execution petition was filed within three months of passing of award and therefore, there is no need to give notice before passing of the salary attachment order. Only when the execution petition is filed after lapse of 3 RY,J cRP 1149 2024 two years of passing of award, there is need to give nc,r ce in the execution petition before passing an order of attachment. comir g to the passing of award without notice to the petitioners, it is argued tlr rt due procedure is followed by the Deputy Registrar of Chits, Warangal, nd in case there is any lapse in such procedure, the award has to be chal enged by filing an appeal. While so, the petitioners herein have not pr:ferred any appeal against the award passed by the Deputy Registrar of ( hits, Warangal, in AAICFAIO.5IZ of 2022. Without challenging th: award, only the attachment order is chartenged in the present civir Re'i ,;ion petition. It is argued that seen f'rom any angle there are no infirmitie: n the order passed by the Executing Court, which cannot go beyond scope c ]the decree. 7 ' Having regard to the rivar contentions, it is seen rrat the petitioners did not challenge the award passed by the Deputy F egistrar of Chits, warangal, in AAICFAIo.SI2 of 2022 dated r7.04),t23 ard, also the Recovery certificate dated. 17.04.2023 issued under str tion 71 read with Rule 55 of the chit Funds Acr, r9g2. The petitioners rive chailengedthe attachment order passed by the Executing Court. Fir:; ly, the Executing court did not commit any irregularity in ordering atta: ring as execution petition was filed within two years olpassing of the arar rd by the Deputy Registrar of Chits. Secondly, the Executing Court has r, , confine itself to ] t 4 RY,J cRP |49 2024 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, Warangal. Without chatlenging the award passed by the Deputy Registrar of Chits, Warangal, in AA/CFAIO.512 of 2022, the petitioners who are jointly and severally liabte to pay the amount to be recovered would not have any locus standi to challenge the atiachment order. No fault can be found on the part of the Executing Court for passing of the attachment order without issuing notice to the petitioners, as notice is mandatory only in case execution petition is filed after expiry of two years of passing of the award. The relief about reducing the amount to be attached per month is a retiet'which can be agitated before the Executing Court. When there is no irregularity committed by the Executing Court while passing impugned attachment order, the same cannot be interfered with by this Court.

8. In the result, the Civit Revision Petition is dismissed confirming the impugned order passed by the Executing Court in E.P.No.622 of 2023 in AA/CFAIO.5l2 of 2022, dated 11.01 .2024. There shall be no order as to costs. Miscellaneous applications, if any din shall stand closed. //TRUE COPY// SD/- M.NAGAMANI ASSISTANT REGIS SECTION OFFICER To,

1. The lV Additional Junior Civil Judge -+um- lV Addit of First Class (Juvenile Court) at Hanamkonda. One CC to SRl. MADIRAJU PRABHAKAR RAO Advocate [OPUC] One CC to SRl. N AMARNATH Advocate [OPUCI Trrr^ /-n a^^iac a 2 I Judicial Magistrate l l l I _/-:-- - - - .:r-,.ri(\.lE I l: )\' /: 0g tt8 1126 \, ',- ;i (,) 'r'" * d HIGH COURT DATED:1411112025 ORDER CRP.No.'t'149 ot 2024 . ; t i I I F I I t t t. t I l ! i i i 5I I ! DISMISSING THE C,R.P- t #