Abdul Mujeeb v. 1. M/s. Brindavan Chits Karimnagar (lndia) Pvt Ltd

Counsel for the Petitioner : Sri. Allampally Rupadevi Counsel forthe Respondents: Abdul Mujeeb The Court made the following: ORDER 'Es: HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K. LAKSHMAN CTVIL REVISIO N ONNo.136O of2025 ORDER: Heard Sri B. Balaji, learned counsel representing Ms.A.Rupa Devi learned counsel for the petitioner. Perused the record.

2. This Civil Revision petition is hled under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, challenging the attachment order, dated 17.O2.2O25 1n E.P.No.95 of 2021 in ARB.No.354 of 2Ol7 passed by the leaned principal Junior Civil Judge at Godavarikhani.

3. Respondent No.3 is the subscriber of respondent No. 1 Chit Fund Company. The petitioner herein and Respondent Nos.4 to 6 are the guarantors to the said Chit. Respondent No. t has filed an application under Section 64 of the Chit Funds Act, 1982 (for short ,the Act, 1982) uide ARB.No.354 of 2Ol7 before the Chit Arbitrator/ Deputy Registrar of Chits, Karimnagar, KL,J C.t .P.No 1360 oJ 2O2s 2 Learned Chit Arbitrator has passed an award, dated 2O.Og.2Olg holding that the petitioner anc respondent Nos.4 to 6 are jointly and severally liable to pay the said amount i.e., Rs. 3,96,24U - with interest @ l8o/o p'a' on the principal amount of Rs.3,09,5821- fronr the date of filing of the dispute titl the date of realizatirn of the said amount.

4. Thereafter, respondent No. t has filed an execution petition uide E.P.No.95 of 2O2l tn ARB No 354 of 2017 under Order XXI RuIe 48 of C.P.C for execution of the said award. Vide impugned salary attachment order, dated 17.O2.2O25, the Executing Court directed the Disbursement Officer of the petitionerTJ'Dr'No'5 to withhold an amount of Rs.2,13,221 l- frorr. the salary of the petitioner and remit to the account of thc aforesaid Execution Petition. Challenging the sail attachment order, the petitioner filed the present ilivil Revision Petition. KL,J C.R.P.No.1s6O oJ 2025 -)

5. It is relevant to extract Order - XXI, Rules - 11 (2) arrd 48 of the CPC and the same is as under: "XXI Rule 1 1 (2) of CPC-tVritten application- Save as otherwise provided by sub-rule(1), every application for thc execution of a decree shall be in writing, signed and verified by the applicant or by some other person proved to the satisfaction of the Court to be acquainted with the facts of the case, and shall contain in a tabular form the following particulars,. namely- (a) the number of the suit; (bl the names of thc parties; (c) the date of the decree; (df whether any erppeal has been preferred from the decree; (ef whether any, and (if any) what, payment or other adjustment of lhe matter in controversy has been made between the parties subsequently to the decree; (0 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; (gl the amount with interest (if any) due upon the decree, or other relief granted thereby, together with particulars of any cross-decree, whether passed before or after the date of the decree sought to be executed; (hf the amount of the costs (if any) awarded; - ";, KL,J ( R P.No 1j6O of 2025 4 (i) the name of the person against whom exer:ution of the decree is sought; and fi! the mode in which the assistance of thc Court is required whether- (i) by the detivery of any property specifically decreed; (iit bv the atlachmcnt, or by the attachm('r t and ' ".t., or by the sale without attachmen ' of any propertY; tiii)tv ihe arrest and detention in prison ol an1' person; (iv)ty the appointment of a receiver; iri.irr..*iJ", as the nature of the relief gr' rnted may require'" "Order XXI Rule 48 of CPC-Attachrnent of of the salary or allowances of servant ()r local Government or railway comPany authority.- (1) Where the property to bc attached is the salary or allowances of a serval l of the Government or of a servant of a railway co npany or local authority or of a servant of a cr rporation engaged in any trade or industry vhich is established by a Central, Provincial or Statc Act' or a Government company as defined in section 617 of the Companies Act, 1956 (1 of 1956)l t rlc Court' whether the judgment-debtor or the c isbursing ofhcer is or is no[ within the local lim ts tlf the Court's jurisdiction, may order that th': amount shall, subject to the provisions of sectir'n 6O' 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 ordt r to such officer as the appropriate Government may by KL,J C.R.P.No.136O of 2O25 5 notification in behalf,- the Official Gazette appoint in this (a) where such salary or allowances are to be disbursed within the local limits to which this Code for the time being extends, th€ oflicer 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 allowances are to be disbursed beyond the saicl 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 instalments, as the case may be, and shall direct the 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 salar5r or allowances is already being withheld and remitted 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 subsequent order to the Cour[ issuing it with a full statement of all the particulars of the existing atlachment. ,-t KL,J C)!.P.No 1360 of 2o2s 6 (3) trvery order made under this rule' unlt ss it is returned in accordance with the provisions of sub- shall, without further notice o rule (2) or the bind the aPProPriate Governmenl process, railway company or local authority or corpol ation of Government company, as the case may be' v'hile the judgment-clebtor is within the local limits to which this Code for the time being extends and wt ile he is beyond those limits, if he is in receipt of ar y salary or allowances payable out of the Consolidated Fund of India or the Consolidated Fund of the State or the funds of a railway company or local autlrority or corporation or Government company in india; and the appropriate Government or the railway lompany or local authority or corporation or Go'"ernment company, as the case may be, shall be liab)e for any sum paid in contravention of this rule' Expianation.-ln this rule, "ap'propriate Government" means,- of the (i) As respects any person in the servrr e Central Government, or any servant of I railway administration or of a cantonment authoriry or of the port authorit5r of a major port, or any ;ervant of a corporation engaged in any trade or industry which is established by a Central Act' or aIIy servant of a Government company in which any part of the share capital is held by the Central Gove 'nment or by more. than one State Governments or partly by the Central Government and partly by one or more State Governments, the Central Governmelt; '.'... 'i., E!r!r{'@*ttt . . IEfXwtF'*F.!* KL,J C.R-P.No.1360 of 2O25 7 (ii) As respects any other servant of the Government, or a servant of any other 1ocal or other authorit5r, 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 Slate Government.'

6. It is also relevant to extract Section - Zl of the Chit Funds Act, 1982 and the s€une is as under: "7L. Money how recovered.-Every order passed by the Registrar or the nominee under section 68 or section 69 and every order passed by the State Government in appeal under section 7O for payment of any money shail, if not carried out,- (a) on a certihcate 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 (b) be executed in accordance with 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 years from the date lxed in the order, and if no such date is fixed, from the date of the order." :t1L3t1-- - ..--ry4.!*:a!itr-*.rtaa&Ea- ;r KL,J C.".P.No.136O of 2025 8

7. It is also relevant to extract Sections - 26' 128 and 146 of the Indian Contract Act, 1872 and tlle same is as under: "L26. "Contract of guarantee"r' t's[rety"' "principal debtor" and "creditor"'- A "contract of guarantee' is a contract to per form the promise, or discharge the tiability, of a thirl person in case of his default The person who liives the guarantee is called the "surety"; the p:rson in respcct of whose default the guarantee is given is called the "principal debtor", and the Frerson to whom lhe guarantee is given is called the "creditor"' A guarantee may be either orai or written'" "128. SuretY's liability.-The 1iabi1i1y of the of the princiPal with that sureqy is co- extenslve otherwise providec bY the debtor, unless it is contract." "L46. Co-sureties liable to colltribute equally.-where two or more persons are co- sureties for the same debt or dut5r, either jointly or severally, and whether under the same o - different contracts, and whether with or witrout of each other, the co-suretit s, in knowledge absence. of any contract to the contrary, are liable' as between themselves, to pay each an et 1ua1 share t.: 9 KL,J C.R.P.No.1360 of202S of the whole debt, or of that part of it which remains unpaid by the principal debtor."

8. From the above, it thus becomes clear that liability of co-surety is co-extensive with that of principal debtor unless it is otherwise provided by the contract. The said principle was also laid down by a Division Bench of the High Court of Judicature for the State of Telangana and the State of Andhra pradesh at Hyderabad in Punyamurthula Venkata Viswa Sundara Rao v. M/s. Margadarsi Chit Fund Prrt. Ltd.r.

9. The aforesaid relevant provisions would reveal that for reafization of the amount covered under the arbitration award, respondent No. 1 - decree holder has to hle an application under Order - XXI Rule 11 (2) of CpC. Accordingly, respondent No. t had li1ed the aforesaid execution petition vide E.p.No .95 of 2021.

10. In Punyamurthula Venkata Viswa Sundara Rao (1 supra), the Division Bench of this Court on consideration '. zorz 1:'1 alr sz 1o.n.; KL,J C R.P.No.1360 of2025 10 of the arguments advanced by the parties, framed the following two (O2) points for consideration: I

11. whether the decree holder has to trrroceed against all the judgment debtor_s, v'ho 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.

11. On consideration of the provisions of tlre Chit Fund Act and the CPC, the Division Bench held thrlt 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 appropriate authority at the option of the decree holder and the Registrar shall himself issue the certihcate 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 lgainst all of L i I ;l l KL,J C.R.P.No.136O of 2O25 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 L2. In Madamanchi Anill Kumar v. Margadarshi Chit Fund Rrt. Limited2, a Division Bench of the High Court of Andhra Pradesh at Hyderabad, considering the principle laid down by the Division Bench in Punyamurthula Venkata Viswa Sundara Raol, 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 Certihcate issued by the Deputy Registrar of Chits cannot be acted upon, as per Rule - 55 of the Andhra Pradesh Chit Fund Rules, 2OO8 and that an execution petition is maintainable to the Competent Civil Court only if the Recovery Certihcate is issued by the Registrar of Chits.

2. C.R.P. No.2338 of 2018, decided on 05. t l.2O l8 t i I 1 I i l i I I KL'J t R.P.No.136O of 2025 t2

13. On consideration of the aforesaid provisions and on examination of the facts of the case therein in Sri Bandi Chandra Haria, this Court held that the decree-holder cannot recover double or more than the awirrded amount from the judgment debtors and the dec:ee holder is entitled for the decretal amount and inter:st and costs awarded by the Chit Arbitrator/Deputy Registrar of Chits.

14. As discussed supra, respondent No'l had frled the said execution petition to recover the awirrded amount only from J.Dr.No.5 and interest'

15. As discussed supra, learned Executrng Court has issued impugned salary attachment order' dated 17.O2.2025 directing the Disbursing Officel of petitioner/ J.D.R.No.5 to withhold the entire amount covered under the said award and remit the said amount to the account of the said E.P. As per the provisions of the Indian Contract Act, it is for the decree holder to recover the 'c.R.P.No.l23l of 2024, dqcided on 03.05.2024 KL,,] C.R.P.No.1360 oJ 2025 l3 decretal zunount and interest either from the petitioner/J.Dr.No.5 alone or from all the J.Drs. Petitioner cannot contend that the decree holder has to recover the amount from the subscriber of chit or from all J. Drs proportionately.

16. It is also relevant to note that Section 6O 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 same is extracted hereunder: -l "i) salary to the extent of [the first [one thousand rupeesll and two third of the remainder] [in execution of any decrce other than a decree for maintenance]: [Provided that where any part of such portion of the salary as is liable to altachment has been under attachment, whether continuously or intermittently, for a total period of twenty-four months, such portion sha.ll be exempt from attachment until the expiry of a further period of twelve months, and, wherc such attachment has been made in execulion of one ald the 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 sa-lary in execution of any decree for maintenance." , I C ?.P.No.136O oJ 2U2s 14 a L7. In the light of the same, on recovery o1'the entire awarded €unount along with interest and pe ndente lite interest, respondent No. 1/decree holder has to file full satisfaction memo before Executing Court tt' terminate the proceedings in the said E.P., failing which the Executing Court can terminate the proceed'ngs in the E.P.

18. During the course of hearing, Iearned counsel appearing for respondent No. 1 failed to get irrstructions from respondent No.1 with regard to the sarr e'

19. Accordingly, the C.R-P. is disposed of directing the Executing Court to consider the aforesaid aspects and decide the E.P. No costs. Asa sequel, the miscellaneous petirions, if any, pending in this Civil Revision Petition shall s'tand closed' \ To, //TRUE COPY// SD/- A.V.S 't:":= .PRASAD GISTRAR /l SECTION OFFICER /--

1. Principal Junior Civil Judge, at Godavarikhani, Peddapirlli District 2. One CC to Sri. Allampally Rupadevi Advocate [OPUC] 3. One CC to Sri Abdul Mujeeb Advocate [OPUC] 4. Two CD Copies GMN/PSL HIGH COURT DATED:2510412025 t I ORDER CRP.No.1360 of 2025 1 rlE 1 B ,itN 26 z a oEsp, Tc\rv! * DISPOSING OF CRP WITHOUT COSTS 6laK t