High Court · 2025

Judgment

1. the Constitution of tndia, aggrieved by the the Principat Junior Givil Judge, Ringa Reddy enforcement of the on the file o-f the Depuf as filed by the respondent 708 of ?fi20 dt: 2B_1 Hydera bad West

4. AND Hihffi)Stft ffi f,i,: I H,1: ffi ".,.Xr;!:p - bv its D ivis io n a r Ma n aser (Les a r), N ...RESPONDENT/DHR lA NO: 1 OF 2025 Between: 1. th.ani Venkata Ramana, S/o. L gcrroorn-"i'i jnt,^.,;riit:r;iffi#H;g,*#,,H,::,r:l*f 2 fiiliffi B!EiJ;.l,ti?3 ffil*flI,,,.,"r,, rg"d "6ur 51 ),ears, occ Junior Assistant, upsr, Klgtp.aoiri,- wrnap"rft,v b-iJtid, "i/" ^ Nrgqr, Wanparthy DistriC[. 'ff lUF,.,-'Sf:ffi "',,i3J'.:';;S:,%.Xpg;,1i1.'g,[:.ffi,0*ib,:,35; R/o. H. No. 41 -248t2i8, reicnerJ'ciiroii,,tavarsudem, wanaparthy '-re"r ', vt"t,vt, F H.- No. 4-3-66, KDR trf :,,?;;, Bi3l#. (

4. aged about by its DivisionalManager (Legal)' N' - #"1 ffa ]]l;'l3l Hlh53,$53:tlLi'?lil[ stated in the petition under seetion *u] :":::::'-t^" ;;;;;,t may be preased 1o u-1"19, 2o24in cRP No 1e8e or' --"ina tnat in the circumstances J:.;::#ffi:;IT;;'X.:'ilqI; Principal Junior Civil Judge' Ranga Reddy District at LB Nagar' zozlgrantingstayofallfurtherp,o"""oingsinEPNol0got2o24onfileofthe ' l

the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High court may be pleased to stay %3;*",Section]:,,"-::..::Hffl.::::"J:;TIL":...u-in;,. of a* further proceedings in E.p. No. 1 ogrzoz'on the fi." of the principal Junior civirJtrdse,RansaReddvDistrict""-'.*t*::::::ingstavofattachmentof' salary of the' put''ttn"' pending disposal of main revision ' ' etitioners : SRI' M DAIIIIODAR REDDY Counsel for the P Counsel fo'r the Respondent : Sri N'AMARNATH The Court made the following: ORDER t t : I i ,1 I. n TIIE IIONOURABLE SMT. JUSTICE REIIUI(A YARA ORDER: Heard Sri M. Damodar Reddy, learned counsel for the revision petitioners and. Sri N. Amarnath, learned counsel for tlre respondent. Perused the entire record.

2. This Civil Revision Petition is preferred challengrrg E.P.No.109 of 2024 onthe file of the Principal Junior Civil Judge, (qriga Reddy District at L.B.Nagar, ('Executing Court'), which was filed by the respondent for enforcing of Arbitration award dated 28.12.2022 in A.C.P.No.708 of 2020 passed by the Deputy Registrar of Chits/Arbitrator Hyderabad (WesQ at Sony Complex, Prashanth Nagar, Kukatpal ly, Hyderabad.

3. In A.C.P.No.708 of 2020, the award was passed directing the revision petitioners herein to pay an amount of Rs.4, OO,738t- along with interest at l8o/o per annum on the principal amount of Rs.3,O4,4501- from the date of dispute till the date of realization. Further, costs of Rs.17,639/- are also awarded. The said amount is to be recovered from the revision petitionerJJDRs. The said E.P.No.l09 of 2024 is challenged primarily on the mode of proper transmission of award from the Arbitrator to the Civil court. Any award passed by the Arbitrator under chit Funds Act, L982, .--.--'-'--" "'-t" \^ \ l i l ./ RY,J cRP 1989 2024 has to be enforced under Rule 55 of the Chit Fund Rules, 200g. However, without foll.owing such a recourse the respondent has straight away filed the E.P. and therefore, the E.P. is unlawful. There was no transfer of award for the purpose of execution by the Arbitrator to the civil court. Until there is trarufer of the award under Rule 55 of the Chit Fund Rules, 200g, the civil court has no jurisdiction to entertain E.p. for enforcement of the award on the basis ofthe recovery certificate, as such prayed to dismiss the E.P.

4. The respondent opposed the present C.R.p. on the ground that there is a valid transfer of the award for the purpose of execution. The respondent filed counter denying obtaining salary attachment order against revision petitioners vide order datd.27.04.2024 unlawfully. According to respondent, the Executing court has rightly issued the salary attachment warrants since therc was no of liability of the revision petitioners. Further, it is alleged that no appeal has been preferred before the Principal Secretary, Stamps and Registration, Hyderabad, under Section 70 of the chit Funds Ac\ 1982, within two months and rherefore, award has becc,me final. The Deputy Registrar of Chits has addressed a letter/permission to the principal Junior civil Judge, Ranga Reddy District at L.B.Nagar, for execution of the award and therefore, there is proper 2 i I I I I I I i i I I I I I I I I I i n cRp_rese_lo;d hansmission of the award. As per G.o.Ms.No .26odated 1r.1at.2016, the Registrar of chits is oonferred with a, rhe powers of rhe **r* 1T- The entire process is in conformity with the law and **;"'r: .:.t "'*' illegality' as such sought dismissar of the present revision. 5' Learned counser for the revision petitioners reried upon the judgments of this Court in Madamanchi Anil Kumar v. Margadarshi chit tr'und private Limited r, punyamurthura v. Margadarshi chit Fund Private Limited2, M. Ravinder Reddy v. The State or rurur!"* and others ' , P. Bhagya Laxmi and others v. lyf/s. :shriram Raghavendra chitsa, Narahari Barraju and others v. rv,s. Neestham chits Private Limitedsand vadra Nagesh Kumar v. rvus. shriram Raghavendra chits (p) Limited6. The aforementioned citations requirement of transmission of award under Rure 55 of the chit Fund Rules, 200!, by Deputy Registrar of Chits ro rhe Civil Court/District Court. :rqhold ^ urrv VUI'L v I 6' In that regard, learned counsel for the respondent denied ttre applicability of tlre aforementioned judgments and relied upon the order of ' cr.p.No.2338 0f 2018, dated 05.u.2018. ' 2Ot7 131 ALD 387 t w.p.No.go7 of N23dated 10.01.2023. c.R. p. No.3076 0f 2a23, dated 19. 12.2023. - t_c.n.p.trto.gs 3t ol za23 dated 01.12.2o23. \.n.p. wo.rz 23 of ztrl24,dated 14.06.2024. - 3 : I I i I I l I I I t, .1.t RY,J cRP-1989 2024 DivisionBenchofthisCourtinC.RP.No.233Sof20lSandorderofSingle Bench in C'R'P'N o2876 of 2024' T.ThelnwardpassedbytheDeputyRegistrarhastobeforwardedtothe competentCivilCourtro,"*"",,tion.Thetransmissionofttreawar]:** bebetweerrtheRegistrar/D"p".yRegistrarChitsandthecompeterrtCourt. The resperndent approached the Deputy Registrar seeking issuance of recoveryr;ertificateandfonvardedthesametotheconcernedJuniorCivil Judge for: execution' In that regard' a copy of letter dated ll '12'2023 addresse<l by the D"p.,ty Registrar Chits to the Principal Junior Civil Judge, RangaReddyDistrictatl-.B.Nagar,hasbeenproduced.Therightcourseof action u,ould have beerr to fonrard the letter along with the recovery certificare for execution of the award to the P'rincipal District Judge' Ranga Reddy])istrictatL.B.Nagar,forsaidCourttoa[,[ottheSametothe concem,:d Civil Court havrng pecuniaryjurisdiction' The Deputy Registrar Chits is not entitled to forward the certificate under Section 71' of the Chit Funds ltct, 1982, directly to the Principal Junior civit Judge' Ranga Reddy District at L.B.Nagar. \ g. Fi.eference is made to judgment of this court in Ravinder v' State of TetanganaT, wherein it is held that a copy of letter dated 17,04.2021 was 7 W.P.No.4!:957 of 2022, dated 30.01.2023- 4 \ \ RY,J cRP 1989 2024 produced wherein the award in question wns forwarded to the Chief Judge, city civil court, Hyderabad, for execution of the same. In view of the said letter, the said Writ Petition was dismissed. The facts of the said case are not applicable to the facts of the present case' g. In M. Ravinder Reddy (trrpta) a copy of letter was forwarded by the Registrar of chits to the chief Judge, city civil court at Hyderabad' similarly, in case, the letter dated 11.12.2023 in File No'DR/CFAtro'708 of 2O2O in the present case, if it was addressed to the Principal District Judge' Ranga Reddy District at L.B.Nagar, then procedure would have been correct and the gasg of the respondent would have been upheld' '.. t ..:

10. In the instant case, the judgments relied upon by the revision petitioners are applicabte when the award is directly transmitted by the decree holder before the concerned competent Court' [n the instant case' the letter issued by the Deputy Registrar of Chits in favour of Principal Junior civil Judge, Ranga Reddy District at L.B.Nagar' was presented by the decree holder/respondent directty before the said Court' Therefore' the objections taken,by tlre revision petitioners on the maintainability of the E.P.No. 109 of 2024 arcsustained' In the result, the Civil Revision Petition is allowed and the impugned l l. E.P.No. 109 of 2024 on the file of the Executing court is dismissed for non- ./ - 5 : i,l RY,J cRP 1989 2024 t: compliance,cf Rule 55 of the Chit Fund Rules, 2008 and it is open for both the parties 1o seek execution of award by following due process of law. There shall be no order as to costs. Miscellaneous applications, if any, pending shall stand closed. //TRUE COry'/ SD'. U. SUDHA ASSISTANT REGISTRAR OFFICER L.B.Nagar. To,

1. The 2. One 3. One 4. Two CD Copies Ks/sa Yy 5 { S 1 O 2 g lrN 2[?[ C, r-i ..!. ,L HIGH COURT DATED:17fi02025 o c RDEP. RP.Nrc.1989 of 2024 Allowing the C.R.P Without costs. *t"-/: c ,ffi*