The High Court · 2025

2. Ravula Hanumanth, S/o. Ravula Venkataiah, Age Not Known' Occ' -GovernmentTeacher,R/o.H.No1-2-2TOllO3lClT14,SriVenkateshwara Colony, SuryaPet.

3. Yaragani Lingaiah, S/o. Yaragani Narayana, Age. Not Known' Occ' - Gove"rnmenti"r"h"t, RJo. H. No. 10-1b, Sneha Nagar Colony, Near Musi Canal, Chivemla, Kudakuda, Suryapet. 4 Ravula Renuka, Wo. Hanumanth, Age Not Known, Occ Property Holder' nl". ff . No- 1-2-2701103 tCt7l4, Sri Venkateshwara Colony, Suryapet' 5. Kasa Srinivas, S/o. Damoder, Age Not Known, Occ Realtor' R/o 3-14- - 122fi 4&7s,Saanvi's Ark, Vivekananda Nagar, Phase-ll' Road No'6' Mansoorabad, LB Nagar, HYderabad. H. No. 1-7-177lE2l1, Church Compound, lmampet' Suryapet'

6. Menchu Srinivas, S/o. gnadraian, Age Not Known, Occ Civil Contractor' Rl/ o Z. narrta Radha Krishna, S/o. Hanumanth, Age Not Known' Occ Associate consultant, Rl/o. H. No. 1-2-270t1031ct7l4, sri venkateshwara colony' Suryapet. e. n.6oin Ramsingh, S/o Vaseeram, Age Not Known, Occ Government - rea"cner, R/o- uINo. 10-46, Sneha Nagar Colony, Road No'4' Suryapet' (Respondent No.2 to 8 are not necessary parties) ...RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS/OPPONENTS No'1 to 6 & 8 I ,,, IANO: 1O F 2025 Petition und.r section 1s'r cpc praying that in the circumsta lces stated in the affidavit fited in suooort of the petitiinliiiJ High Corn ,uy br; p,eased to stav all further pror:eedings in Notice ium conoitiona-t nlt-acnm"nt c,rd,rr U/ s.68 (i and 2) of Chit Fu,d Act D-ated. ti 0r.r0r51;;"i'1" ,a No. l]z of 2o2s in Dispute No. 35 of 2o2S berore rh."^D".!:ril;t;iJtilr or rlhits/r\rb trator, Ranga Reddy District, penrling the present Civil Revision petiti6n. Counsel for the petitioner: SRI M. ARUN KUMAR Counsel for the Respondent No.1: SRI p. DURGA PRASAD The Court made ther following: ORDER I : I -l HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE J. SREENTVAS RAO Cf\rIL REVISION PETITION No. 1648 of 2()25 ORDER: This Civil Revision Petition is filed invoking the provisions of Article 227 of the Constitution of India, aggrieved by the orders passed by the Deputy Registrar of Chits/Arbitrator, Ranga Reddy District, in I.A.No.37 of 2025 in Dispute No.35 of 2025, dated 11.03.2025, issuing order of attachment of immovable property of the petitioner having House bearing No.lO 2O constructed on Plot No.23 (Southern Side), admeasuring 14 1 Sq. Yards, situated at Chiwemla Mandal, Kudakuda Village and Gram Panchayat, Suryapet District.

2. Heard Mr. M.Arun Kumar, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. P.Durga Prasad, learned counsel for respondent No. 1 .

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that respondent Nos.2 to 8 are proforma respondents and the petitioner is not seeking any relief and they are not the necessary Darlies. -- -* - 2 4. With the consent of both the parties, this Civil I\. Revisior-r Petition is disposed of at the stage of admission.

5. Lt:arned counsel for the petitioner sutrm its that responclent \o.1 filed a petition invoking tl-ie prov,.sions of Sections 64 and 66(1) of the Chit Funds Acrt, 1982 (for short, "the Act') before the Deputy Regirstrar of Chits/,arbitrator, Ranga Reddy District, against the petitioner e.nd respondent Nos.2 to 8 for the rec overy of Rs.18,34,1t-31-. Alor,g with said dispute, resporrdr,:nt No.1 filed application I.A.No.37 of 2025 seeking the atti,Lchment of the s'cheCuled property mentioned in the sard petition. The Depu!. Registrar of Chits/Arbitrator, RarLg:r. Reddy District. without issuing notice as required u.nd er sub- Section 2 of Section 68 of the Act, straight away pa,.;sed the impugnr:d order and the same is contrary to the prrtvisions of the Ar:t.

6. He ftrrther submitted that the petitioner is a guarant,lr, and the principal borrower is a govrrrnment teacher and is having movable and immovable propr,:rties. -) \

7. Per contra, l."..r"d3.or.rsel for respondent No.1 submits that, as per the provisions of the Contract Act, the decree holder is entitled to file applications against the principal borrower or the guarantor, and the Court below rightly passed the impugned order.

8. Learned counsel for respondent No.1 further submitted that insofar as the contentions raised by learned counsel for the petitioner that the arbitrator without following the provisions of sub-section 2 of Section 6g passed the impugned order is concerned, the petitioner is entitled to hle an application before the very sarne arbitrator for raising the attachment. The petitioner without frling any such application straight away approached this Court ald liled the present Civil Revision Petition and the same is not maintainable under the law. 9. Having considered the riva_l submissions made by the respective parties, and after perusal of the material available on record, it reveals that in the application filed by respondent No. I in I.A.No.37 of 202\ the Deputy Registrar of Chits/Arbitrator, Ranga Reddy District, passed the attachment order against the petitioner even without issuing the notice 4 as required under sub s.r:ction 2 a of Secticn 6li of the Act. I 0. Taking into consideration the facts and circumst,ances of the case, the impugned order passed by the DeptLtr. Registrar of Chits/Arbitrator, Ralga Reddy District is set aside and the Deputy Reg;istrar of Chits/Arbitrator, Ranga Reddy District, is directed to pass appropriate orders in accordance with law in I.A.No_37 of 2025 , a:; e>:peditiously as possible, preferably w jthin a period of four (4) weeks from the date of receipt of a copv of this orcl e r 1 1. Accordingly, this Civil Revision petition is dispcsed of. No order as to costs. Pendin11 miscellaleous applications, if aly. shall stand clo sed Sdl-eu u eo ABDULLAH KHAN REGISTRAR FTANT ASSI To, //TRUE COPY// /t \;

1. The De:puty Registrar of Chits/Arbitrator, Ranga Ved 2. One CO to Sjri M. Arun Kumar, Advocate [OPUC] 3. One CO to Siri P. Durga Prasad, Advocate [OPUC] 4. Two Ct) Copies PlplMAH Y" 'sEclroN oFFrcER dy District s, \s

4..' .c* n'' \ HIGH COURT DATE:D:Zl 1OS1ZO}S ORDEII CRP.Nro.164g of 2025 1i r'i. -. \', :.. \ t -) 'l'il|'i r'.11 23 rii A DISPOSilNG OF THE C.R.P. 6*\,4 X*