The 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 to stay of all further proceedings in orders dated 24lO4t2O2S in E.p. No. 158 of 2O24 in A.R.B. No.733 of 2022, the I Additionat Junior Civil Judge at Karimnagar, pending disposal of the main CRP. lA NO: 3 OF 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 to extent the time granted by this court dated 2110s12025 in cRp No 1710t2025 in E.P. No.158 of 2024 in A R.B. No 733 of 2022 for further two weeks to deposit an amount of Rs,1,00,000/- in E.P. No. 158 of 2024 in A.R.B. No 733 ol 2022. Counsel for the Petitioner: SRI ALLURI DIVAKAR REDDY Counsel for the Respondents: SRI R LAXMINARASIMHA RAO The Court made the following: ORDER HON'BLE SRIJUSTICE IC LAKSHMAN CML REVISION PETITION No.l7t 0 0F 2025 ORAL ORDER: Heard Mr. Alluri Divakar Reddy, leamed counsel for the petitioner - Judgment Debtor No.2 and Mr. R. Laxmi Narasimha Rao, iii.t learned counsel for respondent No.l - Decree Holder.

2. This revision is filed under Section - 227 of the Constitution ollndia challenging the warrant of attachment order dated 24.04.2025 passed in E.P. No.l58 of 2024 in ARB No.733 of 2022 issued by learned I Additional Junior Civil Judge, Karimnagar

3. Perusal of record would reveal that on the application filed by respondent No.1 yrZe ARB No.733 of 2022, the Chit Arbitrator/Deputy Registrar of Chits, Karimnagar, had passed an award dated 31.10.2023 directing the petitioner herein and respondent Nos.2 to 4 to pay an amount of Rs.2,84,381/- along with interest @ l8%o per annum on the principal amount of Rs.1,99,472l- from the date ofpetition till realization and also costs

4. Pursuant to the said award, respondent No.l herein had filed an execution petition vide E.P. No.158 of 2024 in ARB No.733 of 2022 aganst the petitioner and respondent Nos.2 to 4 herein for i&e*. s .l ,"h 2 KI,J CRP No I 710 of2025 recovery of I1s.3,43,543/- [rom them. Vide order daLed 16.04.2025, learned Executing Court issued warrant of salary attachment against the petitioncr and rcspondent Nos.2 to 4 herein. Accordingly, on

24.04.2025, leamed Exccuting Court issued salary attachment order directing the Disbursing Officer'of the petitioner herein to withhold the aforesaid amount lrom monthly salary of the petitioner herein, who is judgmcnt debtor No.2 in the said E.P. Respondent No.2 herein is the chit subscriber, while the pctitioner and respondent Nos.3 and 4 are the guarantors for thc subjcct chit

5. It is contended by leamed counsel for the petitioner herein that the Executing Court did not order for proportionate deduction among judgmcnt debtor Nos.l to 4. Therefore, the impugned order dated 16.04.2025 is iltegal

6. In the light ol the aforesaid submissions, it is relevant to extract Order - XXI, Rules - 1l (2), 48 and 48A of the CPC, which are as under: "XXI Rule I I (2) of CPC-Written application- Save as otherwise provided by sub-rulc(l), every application fbr the execution ola decree shall bc in writing, signed and verified by the applicant or by some other person proved to the satisfaction ofthe ( ourt to be acquainted with the facts of the case, and shall \.r.contain in a tabular form the lollowing particulars, namcly- ( d 3 KI-,J CRP No l7l0 of2025 (a) the number ofthe suit; (b) the names ofthe parties; (c) the date ofthe decree; (d) whether any appeal has been preferred from the decree; (e) whether any, and (ifany) what, payment or other adjustment olthe mafter in controversy has been made between the parties subsequently to the decree; (Q whether any, and (if any) wha! previous applications have been made for the execution of the decree, the dates of such applications and their resultsl (g) the amount with interest (if any) due upon the decree, or other relief granted thereby, Jogether with particulars of any cross-decree, whether passed before or after the date of the decree sought to be executed: (h) the amount ofthe costs (ifany) awarded; (i) the name ofthe person against whom execution ofthe decree is sought; and 0) the mode in which th'e assistanc" of the Court is required whether- (i) by the delivery ofany property specifically decreed; (ii) by the attachment, or by the attachment and sale, or by the sale without attachmen! ofany property; (iii)by the arrest and detention in prison ofany person; 1ivlby the appointment of a receiveri (v) otherwise, as the nature ofthe relief granted may require." "Order XXI Rule 48 of CPC-Attachment of salary or allowances of servant of the Government or railway compatry or local authority.- (l) Where the property to be attached is the salary or allowances of a servant of the Govemment or of a servant of a railway company or local authority or ofa servant ofa corporation engaged in any trade or industry which is established by a Central, Provincial or State Act, or a Govemment company as defined in section 617 of the Companies Act, 1956 (l of 1956)l the Court, whether the judgment-debtor or the disbursing officer is or is not within the L.ifx 4E&:, i*?f*:: EF 4 KL,J CRP No l7l0 ot2025 tocal limits of the Court's jurisdiction' may order that the amount shall, subject to the provisions of section 60' 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 order to such offtcer as the appropriate Govemment may by notification in the Offrcial Gazene appoint in this behali- (a) where such salary or allowances are to be disbursed within the local limits to which this Code for the time being extends, the officer 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 said limits, the officer or other person within those limits whose duty it is to instruct the disbursing authority regarding the amount ol 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 auttiority to reduce the aggregate ofthe amounts from time to time' to be disbursed by the ag$egate of the amounts from time to time remitted to the Court. (2) Where the attachable proportion of such salary 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 Court issuing it with a fu statement ofallthe particulars ofthe existing afiachment' 5 KI,J CRP No lT lo ot202i (3) Every order made under this rule, unless it is retumed in accordance with the provisions of sub-rule (2) shall, without further notice or other process, bind the appropriate Govemment or the railway company or local authority or corporation of Govemment company, as the case may be, while the judgment- debtor is within the local limits to which this Code for the time being extends and while he is beyond those limits, if he is in receipt ol any 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 authorify or corporation or Govemment company in India; and the appropriate Government or the railway company or local authority or corporation or Government company, as the case may be, shall be liable for. any sum paid in contravention ofthis rule. Explanation.-In this rule, "appropriate Govemment" means,- (i) As respccts any person in the service of the Central Govemment, or any servant of a railway administration or of a cantonment authority or of the port authority of a major port, or any servant of a corporation engaged in any trade or industry which is established by a Central Act, or any servant of a Government company in which any part of the share capital is held by the Central Govemment or by more than one State Govemments or partly by the Central Govemment and partly by one or more State Govemments, the Central Govemment; (ii) As respects any other servant of the Govemment, or a servant of any other local or other authority, or any servant of a corporation engaged in any trade or industry which is established by a Provincial or State act, or a servant ofany other Govemment company, the State Govenment." 't ) :-+!' -rf*'. ffi:" tsE: #il+.+ .'ffitr1. 6 KL,I CRP No I7l0 of2025 ( "Order - XXI, Rute - 48A. Attachment of salary or allowances of private employe€s.- (l) Where the propert) to be attached is the salary or allowances of an employee orher than an employee to whom rule 48 applies,.the Court, f,here the disbursing officer of the employee is within the local limits of the Court's jurisdiction, may order than the amount shall, subject to the provision of section 60, be withheld fiom such salary or allowances either in one payment or by monthly instalments as the Court may direct; and upon notice of the order to such disbursing officer, such disbursing officer shall remit to the court the amount due'under the order, or the monthly instalrnents. as the case may be. (2) Where the attachable portion of such salary or allos,ances is already being withheld or remitted to the Court in pursuance of a previous and unsatisfied order ol attachment the disbursing oflicer shall forthwith retum the subsequent order to thc Court issuing it with a full statement of all the particulars o[ thc eKisting aftachment. (3) Every order made under this rule, unless it is retumed in accordance with the provisions of sub-rule (2), shall, without further notice or other process, hind the employer while the judgment-debtors, is within the local limits to which this Code for the time being extends and while he is beyond those-limits, if he is in receipt of salary or allowances payable our of the funds of an employer in any part of India and the employer shall be liable for any sum paid in contravention of this rule.,' 7 It is relevant to extract Section - 7l of the Chit Fund Act. 1982 and the same is as under: 7 KI.J CRP No l TlO of2025 "71. 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 Govemment in appeal under section 70 for payment ofany money shall, ifnot carried out - (a) on a c€rtificate issued by the Registrar, be deemed to be a decree of a Civil Coun. and shall be executed in the same mamer as a decree of such Court, or (b) be executed in accordance with the provisions of ary law for the time being in force lor the recovery o[ amounts as arrears of land revenue: Provided thar no application for execution under clause (b) shall be made after the expiry of three years from the date fixed in the order. and if no such date is fixed from the date ofthe order."

8. It is also relevant td extract Sections - 126, 128 and 146 of the Indian Contract Act. 1872 and the same is as under: "126. "Contract of guarantee", "suret5r", "principal debtor" and (creditor".-A "contract o[ guarantee" is a contract to perform the promise, or discharge the tiability, of a third person in case of his default. The person who gives the guarantee is called the "surety"; the person in respect of whose default the guarantee is given is called the "principal debtor", and the person to whom the guarantee is given is called the "creditor". A guarantee may be either oral or written." "128. Surety's liability.-The liability of the surety is co- extensive with that of the principal debtor, unless it is otherwise provided by the contract." {t{+tr , [*r,, - ffi,+, -k ':E+. ' ' 8 KL.J CRP No 1710 042025 r "146. Co-sureties |iable to contribute equally._Where two or more persons are co-sureties for the same debt or dur.v, either jointly or severally, and whether under the same or different contracts, and whether with or without the knowledge of each other, the co-sureties, in the absence of any contract to the contrary, are liable, as between themselves, to pay each an equal share of the whole debt, or of that part of it which rcmains unpaid by the principal debtor.,,

9. Thus. the liability of the co_surety is co-exrensive wirh that of principal debtor unless it is otherwise provided bv the contract. The said principle was also. laid down by a Division Bench of the High Court of Judicature for the States of Telangana and Andhra Pradesh at Hyderabad in punyamurthula Venkata Viswa Sundara Rao v. M/s. Margadarsi Chit Fund pvt. Ltd.t.

10. The aforesaid relevant provisions would rcveal that for realization of the amount covered under thc arbitration arvard, respondent No.l - decree holder has to file an application under ()rder - XXI Rule I I (2) of CpC. Accordingly, respondent No. I had filed the aforesaid execution petition vrZe E.p.No. l5 g of 2024. I 1. In Punyamurthula Venkata Viswa Sundara Raor. the Division Bench of this Court on consideration of the arguments 2017 (3) ALT 82 (r).8.) -:l i il, KL,J CRP No l?10 of202i advanced by the parties, framed the following two (02) points for consideration whether the decree holder has to proceed against all the judgment debtors, who are guarantors, by claiming proportionate amount decreed. u. 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. 12 On consideration of the provisions of the Chit Fund Act and the CPC, the Division Bench held that 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 proper authority at the option of the decree holder and the Registrar shall himself issue the certificate 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 against all of them. Referring to Section - 128 of the Indian Contract Act, the Division Bench held that the liabiliry of a surety is co-extensive with that of the principal debtor unless it is otherwise provided by the contract. :., ..ri} | ,.E: - tj!i, &.. I l0 KL,J CRP No lT lo o12025

13. In Madamanchi Anill Kumar v. Margadarshi Chit Fund Pvt. Limited.2 I)ivision Bench of the High Court of Andhra Pradesh at Hyderabad considering the said principle down b1 the Division .laid Bench in Punyamurthula Venkata Viswa Sundara Raor, held that liability of thc sureties is joint and several. The Division Bench also negatived the contention raised by the petitioner therein that a Recovery Certificate issued by the Deputy Registrar of Chits cannot be acted upon, as per Rule - 55 of the Andhra Pradesh Chit lrund Rules, 2008 and that an execution is maintainable only if the rccovery certificate has heen issued by the Registrar of Chits to the compctent C ivil Court.

14. On consideration of the aforesaid provisions and on examination of the facts of the case therein, in Bandi Chandra Hari v. Brindavan Chits Karimnagar India Private Limitedr, this Court held that respondent No.1 - decree-holder cannot recover doublc the awarded amount from the petitioner - judgment debtors, and it is entitled for thc decretal amount and interest including pendent lite interest as claimed by it from the judgment debtors.

2. cRP No.2338 0f 2018, decided on 05.1 1.2018 '. cRp No.lz37 of 2024, decided on 03.05.2024 KI-,J CRP No lTlO ol-2025

15. In the light of the said discussion, the contention of leamed counsel for the petitioner that the Executing Court erred in not ordering the proportionate deduction of award amount and interest etc., is untenable'

16. It is apt to note that on realization ofdecretal amount' costs ict, -.,;,itr and pendent lite interest, respondent No'l - decrec-holder shall file a full-satisfaction memo before the Executing court with a request to terminate the proceedings in Execution Petition' If respondent No' 1 fails to file such satisfaction memo, the Executing Court can terminate the proceedings in the said E.P..on its own'

17. In view of the aforesaid discussion and obscrvation' the present Civil Revision Petition is disposed ol directing learned Executing Court to follow the procedure laid down under the Indian Contract Act and principle laid down in the aforesaid judgments ln the circumstances of the case, there shall be no order as to costs' As a sequel thereto, miscellaneous petitions' if any' pending in this revision shall stand closed' //TRUE COPY// SD/- M.OSMAN ALI BAIG STANT REGISTRAR SECTION OFFICER To, W '1 . The I Additional Junior Civil Judge, Karimnagar. 2. One CC to Sri Alluri Divakar Reddy, Advocate [OPUC] 3. One CC to Sri R. Laxminarasimha Rao, Advocate [OPUC] 4. Two CD Copies NVB/gh +5$n' II HIGH COURT DATED:2710612025 ORDER CRP.No.1710 o12025 t o 3THES () =(') ->..v * 5O 1 6 JUL 2025 --*., .:_._-- .' - DISPOSING THE CIVIL REVISION PETITION 1 q t