High Court · 2025

Petition under section 151 cPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High court may be pleased pleased to stay of all further proceedings including attachment of warrant of movable properties in. E.P.No. 345 of 2024 in ARB.No. s06 of 2021 passed by Learned tV Additional Junior civil Judge at Karimnagar, pending disposal of the main cRp. Counsel for the Petitioners: SRl. RAJESH BATHULA Counsel for the Respondent: SRI K p VIJAY KUMAR The Court made the following: ORDER 7 THE I{ON'BLE SRI JUSI'ICE K. LAKSHMAN CTVIL REVISION PETITION No. 1645 of 2025 ORDER: Heard Sri Bathula Rajesh. learned counsel lor petitioners and Sri K.P. Vrjay Kurnar. lcarned counsel for respondent,, Chit Fund Company.

2. This Civil Revision Pstition is tlled under Afticle 227 of the Constitution of India challenging the order dated

18.12.2024 passed by ttre learned lV Additional Junior Civil Judge, Karimnagar, in E.P.No.34-5 ol'2024 in ARB.No.506 of 202t.

3. Perusal of record would reveal that l't petitioner is the subscriber of the chit with the respondcnt. Petitioner Nos.2 to 5 stood as guarantors to l't petitioner. The respondent/Decree Holder, Chit Fund Company, had filed an application vide ARB.No.506 of 2021 under Seoion 64 of the Chit Funds Act, 1982 (for shorl 'the Acr, 1982'), befbre rhe Chit Arbitrator/Deputy Registrar of Chits, Karimnagar, against 2 kl.l ^ I P P \o tUli ot.rori petrtloners, claining an amount of Rs.6,34,747l_ along with intcrest (r.1 l8o/o per annum on the principal amount of Rs.5,25,8-50i_ fiom the dare of filing of dispute till the dare of realization. L,icle Award dated 2g.05.2024, the learned Chit Arbitrator/Deputy Registrar of Chits held that the petitioners are jointly and ser,,erally Iiable to pay a sum of Rs.6,34,7471_ along with irrterest (gQlg% per annum on the principal amount of Rs.5.25,850i- Iiorn the date of filing of dispute till the date of realization 4' Thereatier, respondenr had filed E.p.No.345 of 2024 in ARB.No.506 of 2021 under Order XXI Rule 43 of CpC against the pctitioners lbr.recor,.ery of the said amount by way o1'attacrrrne,t of thei. rnovabre properties. The said Execution Petition is pending.

5. The petitioners filed the present Civil Revision petition challenging the said Execution proceedings itself contending that the respondent cannot recover the entire awarded amount fiom each of the petitioners and the same is in violation of the 3 KI,, J C R P No.l(r-+5 o{ 2025 procedure laid down under the Indian Contract Act, 1872 (for shorl'the Acl, 1872'), and the Act, 1982

6. It is relevant to extract Order XXI Rulc ll(2) CPC hereunder "Ordcr XXI Rule I I (2) of CPC-Writtcn application- Save as otherwise provided by sub-rulc (l). crery, application fbr thc execution ofa decrec shall lre in rvritins. srgued rncl vcritied by the applicant or by some other person pror ecl to the salislaction of the Court to be acquainted rvith tlre thcts ol'llrc casc. an,.l shall contain in a tabular lbrm the lbllorviue panicuhrs. nanrell, (a) the number of the suit; (b) the names of the parrics; (c) the date of the decree, (d) whether any appeal has been prctcrretl trorl thc clecrec, (e) whether any, and (ifa[ry) whiit. pitvr eDt or ()thcr adjustment o1 the nlatter in controversy has been nradc belu,ee[ thc padics subsequently to 1he decree; (t) whether any, and (il any) u'hat, prcrious applicatiols have been made fbr the execution ol the dccrcc. the datcs of such applications and their rcsults, (g) thc amount wrth irtsrcst (it any) duc Lrpol thc decrec. or other relief granted thereby, together u.ith partictLlars oI any cross- decree, rvhether passed belore or alier the datc of thc rlccrcc soughl to be executed; (h) the amount of thc costs (ifany)au,artlctl (i) the name of the persou against u'horn cxcculion of the decrcc is sought; and () the nrodc in rvhrch lhe assistance of thc Ci)utt is requir.cd u,hethcr- 4 KL- J C R I'No 16+5 ol 202f, (' (i) by the dctivery of:rny propcrly specilically dccreed; (ii) by the attachnrenl. or h),the attacl.urellt and sale. or by the sale without att.tchrncnl. r:r1'any propefty; (iii) by rhe arrest and (lcrcntiolt in prison oI any person; (ir') by thc appointtrcnt ol a lccciver. otherwisc. as the llature ol'thc rclief granted lnay requlrc.

7. The aforesaid provision of law would reveal that for realization of the arnount covcrcd under the arbitral award, decree holder has to file an application under Order XXI Rule I l(2) CPC. Accordingly, r'cspondent had filed the aforesaid

8.P.No.345 of 2024.

8. It is further relcvant to extract Section 7 I of the Act, 1982, hereunder: "71. Monev horv rccovercd. Every order passcd by the Registrar or thc nornit.rcc under seotion 68 or section 69 and every order passed by thc State Covcnulent in appeal under section 70 fbr pavnront ol'any moncy shall, if not carried out, (a) on a ceflificatc issued by the Registrar, bc dcerned to be a decree of a Civil Court. and shall be executcd in the saffIe manner as a dccrcc ofsuch Courl- or (b) be executed in aocordancc with the provisions ofany law tor thc timc bcing in lorce firr the recovery of amounts as arrcars of land revenuc: Provided that no 5 KL, .' C R,, \o l0r5 ot 2025 application lbr execution undcr clause (b) shall bc rnade after the expiry of tl.rrce years fiom the date firctl in the ordcr. and if no such date is flxed. liont thc datc ol thc ordcr. "

9. It is also relevant to extract Sections 126, ll8 and 146 of the Act, 1872, hereunder: "126. "Contract of guarantee", "suret\,', "principal debtor" and "crcditor". - A !'contract of quarantec" is a contract to perfbnn the promise, or discharge the liahilitv. ol a third person in case of his default. The person who gives the guarantee is called the "surety"; the peisoll in respoct of whose default the guarantec is given is callcd the "principal debtor", and the person to whom thc guaralitee is qir,en is called the "crcditor". A guarantee may be eithel oral or rvritten." "128. Surety's tiability,-The liability of the surcry is co- extensive with that of thc principal debtor, unlcss ir is otherwise provided by the contract." "146. Co-sureties liable to contributc equallr.. WItcrc two or lnore persons are co-sureties lor the samc tlcbt ()r duty, either jointly or severally, and u,hethcr uncler the sarne or different contracts, and whether rvith or rvithout tltc knor.vledge of each other, the co-suretics. in the absence of any contract to the contrary, are liable, as bctrleen therrseh.es, to pay each an equal share of the r.vhole dcbt- or of that part of it r.vhich remains unpaid by thc principal debtor." 6 l\L l C lt.P No lb+5 ol 2025 t

10. From the above, it is clear that liability of co-surety is coextensive with that of principal debtor unless it is other-wise prclvided by the contract. Thc said principle was laid down by the Division Bench of High Couft of'.ludicature for the States of Telangana and Andhra Pradesh at Hyderabad, Punyamurthula Venkata Viswa Sundara Rao v M/s. Margadarsi Chit Fund Pvt. Ltd.r I 1. ln Punyamurthula Venkata Viswa Sundara Rao (supra), the Division Ber.rch of courposite High Court of Andhra Pradesh, on consideration ol'the arguments advanced by the parties, framed the lbllowing two (2) points for cons ideration: whether thc dccree holdcr has to proceed against alI tl.re judgment debtors, who arc guaratltors. by claiming proportionatc a tnrtu tt t dccrccd.

11. whether the execution Courls in which E.Ps. were filcd against the present judgrnent dcbtors. who arc revision petitioners herein, havc jurisdiction to enteftain thc execution petitior.rs. ' :o r z 1:.1 AI-T 82 (D.B.) 7 t l-. .1 c R I' \o lf)-f, ol 202i

12. On consideration of the provisions of the Act, 1982, welI as CPC, the Division Bencl-r held that the course that has to bc followed by the decree holder is to make an application to the Registrar for execution, to be forwarded to thc proper authority at the option of the decree holder and the Registr-trr shall hirnself issue a certificate and forward the saicl application to the Courl or revenue authority, as chosen b1, thc decree holder. The decree holder has an option to proceed against either the principal debtor or any of the guararltors or against all of them. Referring to Section 128 of the Act. ltl72. the Division Bench held that liability of a surety is coexrensive with that of principal debtor unless it is otherwise provided by, the contract.

13. ln Madamanchi Anil Kumar v. Margadarshi Chit Fund Pvt. Limited2 the Division Bench of con-rposite High Court of Andhra Pradesh at Hyderabad considering tlie saicl principle laid down by the Division Bench in punvamurthula Vcnkata Viswa Sundara Rao (supra), hetd that the tiability (l R.I'}. No.2l38 o1'2018. decidcd on 05. I 1.20 I 8 B hL-. .i C R Ir Io 161J ot 20-25 r of the sureties is joint and several. The Division Bench also negatived the contention raised by the petitioners therein that a Recovery Ceftificate issued by the Deputy Rcgistrar of Chits cannot be acted upon as per Rule 55 ot'the Andhra Pradesh Chit Fund Rules, 2008, and that execution is maintainable only if the recovery cerlificate has been issued by the Registrar of Chits to the competent Civil Courl

14. In Sri Bandi Chandra Hari v. Brindavan Chits Karimnagar (India) Private Limited-r, on consideration of the aforesaid relevant provisions and on exarnination of the facts of the case therein, this Court held that the decree holder cannot recover double or more than the awarded atnount from the judgment debtors, and it is entitled fbr the decletal amount, pendente lite interest and costs awarded by thc Chit Arbitrator/Deputy Registrar of Chits.

15. It is contended by leamed counsel for tl.re petitioners that the movable properties sought to be attached by the decree holder are exempted under Section 60 CPC as they are ' c.R.P.Nu.l237 o12024. decided on 03.0-5.2024 9 ht- .l c I? P \o 1615 0t 202a household arlicles, which are very essentiat for the families ot. the petitioners fbr their tivelihood. It is also co,tended that learned Executing Courl issued warranf of attachment. oI rnovable properlies of the petitiollers on 19.12.2024 without rssulng any notlce and without giving any opportunity ol hearing

16. It is relevant to note that Section 60 CpC deals with property that is Iiable for attachment and sale in execution ol.a decree. It specifies a tist of properties that can be attached anci sold to satisty a decree. These include lands, houses, buildings. goods, molley. bank notes, and other financial instrumcnts. However, it also includes exceptions, such as necessar.y wearing apparel, cooking vessels, beds and bedding of judgment debtor, his wife ancl children and personal ornaments. as well as certain exemptions for Govemment pensioners and local authority employees. 10 hL.i (l ll f'\o l()+a ol 2021 t

17. In the light of the aforesaid discussion, this Cour-t is o{' the view that the petitioners can't contend that the respondent has to recover the awarded amount witlr irrterest ctc., proportionately from alI the Judgment Debtors.

18. In the present case, admittedly, there is no salary attachment order passed by the learned Executing Court. The respondent filed the subject E.P. under Order XXI Rutc 43 of CPC and the learned Executing Court issued warrant of attachment in respect of movable properties of the petitioners/Judgment Debtors. The same is questioned in the present Civil Revision Petition by the Judgment Debtors on tlre ground that no notice was issued to them and no opporlunity of hearing was afforded to.them

19. In the light of the above, it is relevant to note that the Award is dated 28.05.2024 and the subject Executiou Petition r,vas tllcd on 20.1 1.2024. Thus, the respondent, decree holder, has filed the above said Execution Petition within t'uvo years. Thcrcfore, the learned Executing Court can pass attachment 11 I\l-, J C R P No 16.15 oI2025 order without issuing notice to the petitioner/Judgment Debtor. However, with regard to the attachment and sale ol movable properties, the Court has to Ibtlow the procedure specified under Order XXI of CPC.

20. In the light of the aforesaid discussion, this Civil Revision Petition is disposed of directing learned Executing Court to follow the procedure laid down under Order XXI ol' CPC for rcalization of E.P. amount which includes costs and pendente 1ile interest strictly in accordance with law and principles laid down in the afbre-cited judgments. There shall be no ordcr as [o costs. Miscellaneous applications, if any pending, shall stand closed. Sd/. T. JAYASREE DEPUTY REGISTRAR //TRUE COPYII ! SECTION OFFICER

1. The lV Additionat Junior Civil Judge at Karimnagar 2. One CC to SRI RAJESH BATHULAAdvocate tOpUCl 3. One CC to SRl. K P VIJAY KUMAR Advocate tOpUCl 4. Two CD Copies To W I I \ STATE o <) 15 tr\t 16 >. c) -N' { t ntr 1:P N HIGH COURT DATED:1 310612025 ORDER CRP.No.1645 of 2025 CIVIL REVISION PETITION IS DISPOSED OF 1 q 1\