High Court · 2025

Judgment

2. 3 #,:ffi#,tfl""l*bl;ttraffffi tr1ffi''''t'#"if'"fu '['r"' il,"iru*f t+rgg+;tg,'i*;sff {'3hrye'*'l'f *iiriru%hambers Hyderabad

Ul.;*t"**,#tqf, I:#:.$[?$rfj{1q?iH{H"."%:?f:,']is^,"''r"'r: Secunderabad. 4. Mr.Narasimhadevara Raikumar, s/o. N.s^atyanarayana Aoed 43 years' occ Proo ltl/s.Abhi cont,u"t3?J'rif r'ilt i oo A"r''va'Apartments' Goutham 'l{a{ir Lingojiguda, Saroornagar' Hy0eraoao' 5 M r Ka p p ara c^"p i [,t! Ei;l,liif tB :1!.1$[^ffi 3 Construction Business l' jH?fl ti ff il u vo "," o a o ..'ResPondents/ResPondents I I I I I I l ; i r:..t-,t >2.4 ;-,.=7 IANO:2OF 2024 Petition under Secrion*1:l.,CpC praying that rn the circumstances stated in the affidavit fired in suoport or *re peiition, in"'l'ign court may be preased to S5::li[:i:',T:'s#,i""li,l:'::::;: fi;.'J;ol:',E i'Jes"ny attached in Execution ":*r :; ol"i.3lllf3 1t"1,,.T I" ;'r"' "i-b,i"""ryjl,"bli.i", Judge, Medak, pendins n re.; ilil i# ;L;:ii', JJI S ::" 1! "*,""fl ? ftl ilil -ffI#, re r e a s e d -o lA NO:4 oF 2024 Petition under Section*1!l,gpC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in suoport of tne peiitio,n, if," i.,gn Cou.t may be pleased to direct the Joint sub-Registrarr,rasliar"'sr"gir"oov, to rerease from the Attachment/prohibition of petitionei f-o"ui'i"'r. extent of Ac..r-.r0 qts. rn sy.No.180/7/21t1, and Ac i_t0 si;ln Uv.i,".ie6ir,,iirr, rorr,rand to an exLni or Ac 2-20 gts, totar rand to an Ext"ent "rx".i]ib?r, i1,rr,"o at Khaziparyvitrrgu, Jinnaram Mandal. Sanoareddy.District, ,t *r!'lt[.ned/prohibited ," p", tiu orders dated t+ tz.zor"e in. t.A.No_.ssi'"i'ziiie ii'nnrrcr,*o.62B12018 on the file of Deputy RegistrariArbitrrtor. n.i'nii. *i;#il. lA NO: 1 OF 2025 Petition under Section_11!,gpC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit fired in suoport. ot ttre peiitio'n, iri"'iigl, court may be preased to A',ow the Review perition and set ,"';i;'i;;'ori",. ort"o 18t02t2025 passed in cRP No 244712024. consequently DtRECi-ft,"-ioint sub-Registrar/Thahsitdar, Sangareddy' to rerease from the rttacrrmen,pr-or,"iiition ot petitioner propertv to an extent of Ac 1-10 ots in.sv No-1 aiir;z1 i,")ii'ic.r-rosts in sy.No tddil,zrz, totar rand to an Exte"nt n"lizo jt].,'ri,r"i#'1,^,< hazipaty Virage. Jinnaram Mandar' Sanqareddv Disrri61, it *rr"riirrn"i)'ploiio,t"o as per the orders dated 14t12t2018 in t.A.rrio.5e7l?91g.ir neR/ArXI.iii,ro,u on the fire b.pltv Reg istra r/Arb itrator, Red H if f s, HyJerala Jt.' ir,",Y.#"rt of jusrice. Counsel for the petitioner: SRI p.VENKANNA "r "r Counsel for the Respondent No.1: SRI P.DURGA PRASAD The Court made the following: COMMON ORDER ,./ ,/ k, THE HONOURABLE SMT' JUSTTCE K' SUJANA I.A.No.1 of 20125 (Review) Io/and CwIL REVISION PETITIoN No' 2447 of2024 COMMON ORDER: I.A.No.1 of 2025 is filed by the petitioner seeking to review the order dated la 'O2 '2025 passed in C'R'P'No 2447 of

2. Heard Sri P' Venkanna' learned counsel appeanng on behalf of the petitioner as well as Sri P' Durga Prasad' leamed counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents'

3. lrarned counsel for the petitioner submitted that this Court,whiledismissingC.R'P.No.2447of2024on 7a.O2.2o25,had not taken into consideration the earlier order dated 18.11'2O24' wherein a Co-ordinate Bench had recorded that the petitioner complied with the order dated 09 'Oa'2O24 and directed that the decree holder was at liberty to proceed against the other JDRs and guarantors for recovery of the balance decretal amount' He further submitted that ttre petitioner had alreadY dePosited Rs. 15,OO,OO0/ - 2 SKSJ C.R.P.No-2441 ol2OZ4 ', :-il 1 'L a't ,| compliance with the conditional stay order, and therefore, his share was proportionately satished under Section 146 of the Contract Act. He contended that the decree holder had already obtained attachment orders against the -propert5r of the principal debtor and also filed E.p.No.3O1 of 2022 for its saie, and once the principai debtor,s property \^'as attached, proceeding agalnst the guarantor/petitioner,s property was illegal and contrary to Section 146 of the Contract Act. Therefore, the prayed the court to allow the review by setting aside the order dated 1g.O2.2025 and consequently allovv the civil revision petition

4. Learned counsel for the respondent submitted that the review petition was not maintainable as the issues raised had already been adjudicated and could not be re-agitated in revrew proceedings and that the scope of review was very limited and confined only to correcting errors apparent on the face of the record, not to re_open or re_argue mafl.ers already decided. He further submitted that the pedtioner, being a guarantor, was jointly and severally liable along with the principal debtor and other sureties, and as per law, the decree holder had the absolute right to proceed against aly of the SKS,J oI 2024 C.R.P'No'2447 judgment debtors of his choice for recovery of the decretal amount. He contended that Section 146 of the contract Act had no application since the agreement of guarantee bound the petitioner to joint and several liability' and the guarantor could not dicta'te terms to the decree holder on how recovery should be made' He further contended that the decree holder had not received any payment from the principal borrower or other guarantors and that more than Rs'6O'O0'0oO/- due, hence the request for release of the attached property had no merit' He argued that the award passed by the Deputy Registrar was hnal and enforceable as a decree' and the proper remedy for the petitioner was to frle an appeal under the Chit Funds Act' rather than seeking review' Therefore, he prayed the Court to dismiss the review petition' was still ln the light of the submissions made by both the 5. leamed counsel and on perusal of the material available on record, this Court finds that while passing the order dated 18.02 '2()25 in CRP No'2447 of 2024 ' the observation of the Co-ordinate Bench in the earlier proceedings was not taken into consideration' In the said order' this Court had recorded order dated that, upon compliance of the conditional I I j ,l ! i: .1., -. Il ,. I..,.. It ... 4 srcJ C.R.p-No.2447 of 2o2iA 09 .O8.2024 , the decree holder was given liberty to agatnst the other judgment debtors and realization of the balance decretal amount. proceed guarantors for

6. The contention of the respondent that Section 146 of the Indian Contract Act, 1gZ2 is not applicable in the present case on the ground of a contract to the contrarS, is not borne out from the record, as no such contract has been produced to exclude the aPPlicability of Section 146. For reference, Section 146 provides that, in the absence contract to the contrary, co_sureties are liable, as b themseives, to contribute equally towards the unpaid debt of the principal debtor. ln the present case, the pedtioner had already compiied wi th the conditional order of this Court by depositing his share of the decretal amount. At this stage, it is pertinent to note Sect.ion 146 of contract Act is extracted of any etween hereunder: ""146. Co-sureties liable to contribute equally.-_ Where two or more persons are co_sureties for the same debt or duty, either jointly or severally, ancl whether under the same or different contracts, ard whether with or without the knowledge of each other, the co-sureties, in ttre absence of any 5 sKs,, of 2024 C.R.P.No.2447 contract to ttre corfrary' are themselves, to PaY each an equal debt, or of ttrat Part of it which the PrinciPal debtor' [able, as between share of the whole remains unPaid bY lllustrations (a)A, B and c are sureties T":I:ffi;JJf: rupees lent to E E makes del a ,." Iiable' as between themselves' to pay ^.U 1,OOO ruPees each' " -' "":"-:-:: ::::i::ffiiJ:t; (b) A, B and ruPees lent to E' and there rr B and c that A is to be responsible to the extent of .*-Or*"', B to the extent of one-quaJter' and C to the extent of one-half E makes default in payment' As between ttre sureties' A is liable to pay 25O -0""", U 250 rupees' and C 5OO rupees " petitioner's liabilitY respondent cannot proceed 7 . Therefore, once the proPortionatelY satisfied' the against the petitioner for the balance amount' to be reafized from the other judgment debtors terms of Section 146 of the Contract Act and earlier order of this Court' as the same 15 / guarantors in in view of the

8. Accordingly' this Interlocutory Applicatron 1S allowed. Theorderdated18.02.2o25passedinCRPNo.2447of2024is ':]. I 6 SKSJ C.R.P,No.2447 of 2024 t hereby set aside. Consequen,y, the Civil Revision allowed. There shajl be no order as to costs. Petition is Miscellaneous applications, if any pending, shall stand closed //TRUE COPY// SD/. M. NAGAMANI ISTANT REGISTRAR { A ,T SECTION OFFICER I I To, 1 . The Principal District Judge, Medak District. 2. The Deputy Registrar of Chits/Arbitrator, Hyderabad 3. One CC to Sri p.Venkanna, Advocate IOPUCI 4. One CC to Sri p.Durga prasad, Advocate tOpUCl 5. Two CD Copies NVBw I I I I I i HIGH COURT DATED:08 tlgt2O2S COMMON ORDER l.A.No.1 ot ZOZ1 ln/And CRP.No.244t of 2024 i\( c Ll e ,r (.': ! ;ri l.:< 1$6 I rJ ':1:r:. - , .:(,, \\ttl --,.:- . . 'E -,-rrrr'{' - :: " :'1-=l-:L-::';' ,.)'.), ALLOWING THE IA.NO.I OF 2O25AND CIVIL REVISION PETITION -*'I -^P\el) &{. I I I i i I I I ! I t : ; ;