The High Court · 2025

Padala Srinivas, sio Chinnamallaiah, age. 39 years, Occ. Agriculture and finance, Rl/o H.No.3-4,Brahmanapalli, Peddapalli, Karimnagar now Peddpaalli Mandal and district 3. Bommagani Thirupath Contractor, Rl/o H.No. Peddapalli d istrict iGoud, s/o Shanakaraaih, age. 43 yearS,Occ. 15-1-241, Tilak Nagar, Godavarikhani, Karimnagar now

4. Kanamalla Premkumar, s/o Narsaiah, Age. 59 years, occ. HMPS, Pashigam, R/o 6-6-67, Gandhi Road, Karimnagar

5. Ponnam Ramulu, s/o Narayana, age.59 years, Occ. supportman' F/o H.No.9- 3-530, R/o 9-3-530, Vittalnagar.. Godavarikhani

6. Dhushpaka Srinvas, s/o Rjapocham, age. 37years,Occ. Junior Plant Assistdnt, Fl/o Quarter No. UL 35, P Colony, Ramagundam, Karimnagar now Peddapalli district

7. Mupidi Narsaiah, 6/o Pochalu, age .47 years, Occ. coalcutter, Rl/o Post- Ramaiahpalli, Mutharam Mandal, Karimnagar district B. Bommagani Shankaraih, s/o Rajiah, age .46 years, Occ. Vendor.' Fl,/o GDK V lncline, R/o Quarter No. T2-120, Thilaknagar, Godavarikhani 'l!' lia'

9. Manda Ram Reddy, S/o Narayana Reddy, age 49.yezrrs Occ lumpman' - '6-2-741A, PH colonv, Godavarikhani ilcp it pl;P ll,r/o l0.Guruvandali: Flilraih, s/o Narsaiah, age.49 years, Occ business' R/o Posl Chekuri, Fr'e,lo rpalli Mandal And District 'll.tvtarthaSatvarzravana,s/oNarsaiah,age.5'lyears,C)ccagert'KapilChit FrnOJpvr [to fVt, H.No. 4-69-2714, Teegalaguttapalli, Karimragar 12.. A.Diwakirr Reddy, s/o Venkat Reddy,-ag-e' 38 ye{s, Occ. Marager' Iril/s - Srtirp, nri,,nue 'v4'Ltd, Fl,/o H.No. 3-i-630, CVRN Road, K;rrim tagar' (Respondents Nr:,11 to 12 are not necessary parties )' ...RESPONDENI'S/J, Drs 1 ,2,4 to 12 IA NO: 1 OF 2025 Petition .ln<ler Section '1 51 of cPC praying that in the circun stances stated -r support of the petition, the High cou 1 mery br I pleased grant in the affidavit fi e,l i stay of executicn ol rararrant of attachment of salary of the p,:titic ner in E.P.No. o or zot s in o. s N,:,. 167 of 2011 on the file of the Princ pal Sen or civil Judge, Karimnagar pending i sposal of the C.R.P. Counsel for the P'etilioner : SRI R LAKSHMI NARSIMHA t?AO Counsel for the Fle:;pondent No.1 : SRI K P VIJAY KUMAR Counsel for the Fier;pondent No. 2lo 12:. - - - The Court made the following: ORDER ..rqury..,. THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K. LAKSIIMAN CIYIL REYISIO N PETITION No. 1622 of 2025 ORDER: Heard Sri R. Lakshmi Narsimha Rao,'learned counsel for petitioner and Sri K.P. Vijay Kumar, learned counsel appearing for respondent No.1, Chit Fund Company.

2. Respondent Nos.2 to 12 are not necessary parties.

3. Respondent No.l, Chit Fund Company, filed a suit in O.S.No.l67 and20ll, against petitioner and respondent Nos.2 to 12 seeking recovery of an amount of Rs.4,44,980/- along with interest @12% per annum. Vide judgment and decree dated 30.10.2013, the said suit was decreed ex parte. On the strength of the said decree, respondent No.l, Chit Fund Company, has filed Execution Petition vide E.P.No.6 of 2019, before the leamed Senior Civil Judge, Karimnagar, who in tum, passed the undated order closing the said E.P. Challenging the'same, petitioner/Judgment Debtor No.3 filed the present Civil Revision Petition. l i 2 KL, J C i F \o 1622 of 2025

4. Sri tt. Lakshmi Narsimha Rao' learned coursel for the petitionr:r. ',vould contend that the Chit Funds Act' 1')82 (for short 'lhe ,rr:t, 1982'), came into force on 15 09 20C8 itself' Therefore, rrlier 15.09.2008, respondent No 1' Chit Fund Company,, t:ittrnot file a suit before the civil Cc'urt and ithas to file an rrppli':ation before the Registrar, in ternrs of Section 64 of the ,\r-1, 1982. lnstead, respondent Nrl l' Ctit Fund Compirn-'". f,led O.S.No.161 of 2Oll before the learned Principal ll:nior Civil Judge, Karimnagar' on 30 06'2011' Theretrlre, t.he said suit, O'S'No'167 o1' 2011 is not maintainable. Without considering the said asl)ectri' tho learned trial (lorrrl riecreed the said sttit vide judgrnen: ard decree dated !i0. 1 l. l0 1 3.

5.1{t:'rrruldfurthercontendthatevenane:pt'rteorder should L,e Jrassed on merits and the leamed trial (lou t decreed the said siLit stating that the suit claim is proved :tnd the suit is decreed uith costs as prayed for charging interest (il,lZo/o per annum or the principal amount from the date of suit till its realizirtiorr lt is not a reasoned order. Respt>ndt:nt l'.1o. l, chit Fund' .tir'.npany, represented by its Reco"'ery Officer' 3 KL, J C.R.P No 1622 of2025 Sri N. Shiva Krishna, filed the aforesaid suit without any authorization from respondent No.l. Without considering the said aspects, the leamed trial Court decreed the said suit.

6. He would further contend that as per the Memorandum of Association and Articles of Association of respondent No. I , Chit Fund Company, there is no need of fumishing l2 sureties. The entire amount was credited to the account of M/s. Kapil Chit Funds (Kakatiya) Private Limited, whereas, the decree holder is M/s. Kapil Chit Funds Private Limited, Karimnagar Branch. On the said grounds, he sought to set aside the undated order under revision passed by the learned trial Court in E.P.No.6 of 2019 in O.S.No.167 of 2011

7. Learned counsel for respondent No.1, Chit Fund Company, would contend that there is no error in the undated order under revision.

8. As discussed supra, petitioner being Judgment Debtor No.3 can resist the Execution Petition raising all the grounds and contentions which he has raised in the present Civil Revision Petition. As rightly contended by the learned counsel I 4 KL, J C i-.P.llo I622 oI2025 for the pt:titioner, even an ex parte judgment shouLl be on merits. .Pe,n,:al of judgment dated 30.10.2013 in O.S No'167 of 2011 p,lsr;,1,l by the leamed Senior Civil Judl-re, Ilari'nnagar, would reveiLl that the learned trial Court decreed the r'aid suit stating th;rt the suit claim is proved, the suit is decre'ed with costs as prilye<l for, with interest @12% per anrlulr on the principal arrr()unt from the date of suit till its rea lization. However. l re learned trial Court did not assign any reason There i; r.rr., ,:onsideration of Exs.A.l to A.18. fiut, there is challenge to t[.rc said ex pqrtejudgment and dercret:. A; rightly contenderl by the learned counsel for the petitiorLer- the Act, 1982, can-ro into force with effect from 15.t)9.2008. Admittr'dlv the present suit was filed by re:spondert No.1, Chit Irunrl (l(rmpany, on 30.06.2011. In fact, l'esp'lnd':nt No.1 has to ile an application in terms of SectiorL 64 ot the Act, 1982, hefbr: the Chit Arbitrator/Deputy Registrar <,f Chits' Instead of Jc,ing so, petitioner filed the afore,saicl suit before the civi[ ( ]o tu't

9. In th: order under revision, there is tto date and the ; Execul.ing ,llourt passed the order under revision clc,sing the 5 I<L, J c.R.P.No.rO22 0f2025 said E.P. Therefore, it is not a reasoned order. However, the petitioner/Judgment Debtor No.3 has to raise all the contentions before the learned Executing Court. He has not even entered appearance in E.P. Therefore, petitioner/Judgment Debtor No.3 has to enter appearance in E.P.No.6 of 2019 and raise all the grounds and contentions, which he has raised in the present Civil Revision Petition, I I before the learned Executing Court and it is for the Executing Court to consider the same.

10. In the light of the above, the undated order under revision passed by the leamed Principal Senior Civil Judge, Karimnagar, in E.P.No.6 of 2019 in O.S.No.l67 of 2011 is set aside. The matter is remanded back to the learned Executing Court with a direction to decide E.P.No.6 of 2019 afresh. Liberry is granted to the petitioner to take all the aforesaid contentions before the learned Executing Court in the said E.P. by filing counter. Thereafter, it is for the trial Court to consider and decide the same. 6 KL, J C ,t l: N, .1622 o12025

11. Accorrlingly, this Civil Revision Petition is rllowed. There shall b.r: no order as to costs. Mjscr. llaneous applications, if any pending, shiLll stand closed //TRUE COPY// SD/. P.GOWRI SHANKER DEPU'ry REGIgTRAR t, SEC:TION OFFICER To, 1 2 J 4 The Prircira S;enior Civil Judge, at Karimnagar One CC: to Sri Fl Lakshmi Narsimha Rao, Advocate IOPUCI One CC; to Sril'( P Viiay Kumar, Advocate [OPUC] Two CCt Cop e s; ABK l l I i HIGH COURT DATED: 2710612021 ORDER CRP.No.1622 ttf 202'5 ' \i\ a^I O c) {: 'l['6 .Z ,6) ALLOWING THE CFIP WITHOUT COSl'S D p