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 stay all further proceedings in E.P No. 53 of 2022 in Arbitration No. 117 of 2020, dt 31-08-2023 on the file of Principal Junior Civil Judge-cum- Judicial Magistrate of First Class at Sangareddy and be pleased to pass Counsel for the Petitioner(s):SRl. PALLE SRIHARINATH Counsel for the Respondents: N AMARNATH The Court made the following: ORDER THE HON'BLE JUSTICE B.R. MADHUSUDHAN RAO CML REVISION PETITION No.3328 of 2o23 ORDER: The Civil Revision Petition is Iiled under Article 227 of Constitution of India assailing the Salary Attachment Order passed in E.P.No.S3 of 2022 in Arbitration Claim Petition No.l17 of 2020, dated 3L.O8.2O23 by learned Principal Junior Civil Judge - cum - Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Sangareddy. Iiied under Order XXI Rule 48 of C-P.C.

2. Petitioners are judgment debtor Nos.2 to 4 Respondent No. 1 is decree holder in E.P.No.53 of 2022.

3. Respondent No.1 - decree hoider has frled E.P.No.53 of 2022 for arr amount of Rs. 19,35,124/- before learned Principal Junior Civil Judge, Sangareddy basing on the Award passed in Arbitration Claim Petition (Dispute) No.117 of 2O2O dated 24.11.2020. The pray,er 1 BRMR,J CRP No 3328 of 2023 in E.P. is to issue Warrant of Attachment of sala-ry against judgment debtor Nos.2 to 4 (who are petitioners herein) under Order XXI Rule 48 of C.P.C., till the decreetal arnount is recovered

4. The learned trial Court has allowed the said E.P. vide order dated 31.08.2023 clirecting the judgment debtor Nos.2 to 4 (who are petitioners herein) to make payment of EP amount along with costs and future interest within a period of thirty (30) days, failing rvhich the Oourt shall issue Salary Attachment Warrant under Order XXI Rule 48 of C.P.C.

5.1 Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the iearned trial Court ought to have noted that it is not in dispute that respondent No.1 - Chit Fund Company has obtained Award on 24.1L.202O against the petitioners and respondent Nos.2 to 6 herein jointly ald severally whir:h they have to satisfy personally. He also submits that learnecl trial Court ought to have noted that the BRMR.J CRP.No.332n of 2o23 ,1 petitioners herein are not only the guarantors and the respondent No.1 (decree holder) ought not to have proceed against the petitioners - judgment debtor Nos.2 to 4. In fact, the decree has to be executed against the principa,l debtor i.e., respondent No.2 hereir-r.

5.2 The learned trial Court ought not to have attach the salary of the petitioners - iudgment debtor Nos.2 to 4 ar-rd it has to proceed against the principal debtor first, then only against the guarantors.

5.3 Learned trial Court ought to have noted that Chit Fund Company shall be at liberty to enforce its dues in question against the guarantors only after exhausting its remedies against respondent No.2 herein (principal borrower - JDR No.1) and prayed to set aside the order.

6. Learned counsel for the respondent No.l - decree holder submits that petitioners ought to have filed an appeal under Section 70 of Chit Funds Act, 1982, which BRMR,J CRP.No.3328 of2O23 4 they have not done so and the present C.R.P. is not maintainable and respondent No.1 - decree holder has liberty to execute the Award against any of thc €luarantors and the principle debtor. In support of his cont entions he relied on the decisions in the cases of i) Bank of Bihar Ltd. V. Dr.Damodar Prasad and anotherl and ii) State tsank of India v. Messrs Indexport Registered ald others2

7. Belore answering the point it is appropriate to refer Section 70 of the Chit Funds Act, 1982, which reads as under: "70. Appeal against decision of Registrar or nominee.-Any party aggrieved by any order passed by the Registrar or the nominee or the award of the Registrar or the nominee under section 69, may, within trvo months from the date ol the order or award, appeal to the State Government." ' (1969) ArR (SC) 297 , (1992) ArR (SCW) 1939 I I ) BRMR.J CRP.No.332a of 2o2s

8. In Dr. Damodar prasadl tJle Apex Court observed at paragraph No.4, which reads as under: "4. Before payment the surety has no right to dictate terms to the creditor anc ask him to purs,,rc his remedies against the principal in thc first instancc. As Lord Eldon observed in Wright V. Simpson (1g02) 6 Ves Jun. 774; 31 E.R. 1222. ,Brtt the surety is a guarantee; and it is his business to see whether the principal pays, and not that of the creditor." In the absence o[ some special equity the surety has no fight to restrain an action against him by the creditor on thc ground that the principal is solvent or that the creclitor may have relief against the principal in some other proceedings..

9. In Indexport2, the Apex Court observed at paragraph Nos.32 and 33, which reads as under: "32. The guarantor in the prescnt suit ncver took any plea to the effect that his liability is onl-y contingent if remedies against the principle debtors fail to satisfy the dues of the decree-holder. If such a plca had been taken and the court trying the suit had considered the plea and gave any finding in favour of the guarantor, then it would have been a different position. But in the present case, on the face of the decrec, which has become final, the court cannot construe it otherwise than its tenor. No. executing court can go beyond the BRMR,J CRP.No.3328 of 2023 6 decrce. All such pleas as to the rights which the guarantor hacl, had to be taken during trial and not after the dccree w]rile execution is being levied. il3. 'lhe rcsult is that the appeal is allowed and the impugned ordcrs of the High Court dated 23rd May, 1990 and of the learned Additionai District Judge dated Sth May, 1989 are set aside and it is held that the decrce-holder is entitled to proceed against the guaranlor fiudgment debtor No. 4) for the execution of the aloresaid decree."

10. Respondent No.1 - Chit Fund Company has made an appiication before the Deputy Registrar of Chits - Arbitrator, Sangareddy vide Arbitration Claim Petition No.i17 of 2O2O under Section 71(a) of the Chit Furrds Act, 1982 for a claim of Rs. 14,07,2gO1_ along with future interest @ 1g% per annum on the principal amount of Rs. 11,97,411/_ from the date of dispute i.e., 3l.Ol.2O2O, till the date of realization with costs. Wherein, the notices sent to respondent Nos. 1 to g therein (petitioners and respondent Nos.2 to 6 herein) are served on them and they remained ex parte beforp the 7 BRMR,J CRP.No.332B of 2023 Registrar of Chits. The Registrar of Chits basing on the material placed thereon has passed Award on

24.11.2O2O, which reads as under: "ln exercise of powers conferred under Section 69 of thc Chit Fund Act, 1982, I do here by order that in vierv of above disputant is found entitled to recover an amount (Rupees Fourteen Lakhs Scvcn Rs.L4,O7 ,79O /- Thousand Seven Hundred and Ninety Only) along u'ith future interest @ 18% per annum, on the principal amount of Rs. 1 1,97,4 1 1/- from 3 1.0 I .2020. The datc of dispute to till the date of realization. Any other payment made shall also be adjusted after filling of the dispute in aforesaid quantif-red entitled amount. The disputc accordingly awarded in favour of disputant and against all the opponents. Costs of Rs.35,381/- (Rupees Thirty Five Thousand Three Hundred and Eighty Onc Only) arc also awarded."

11. The respondent No.t herein - decree hoider has filed E.P. on 06.05.2022 against the judgment debtors basing on the Award dated 24.1I.2O2O. The total amount claimed in the said E.P. is Rs. 19,35,124 I- wit}l a prayer to atta$h the salary of judgment debtor Nos.2 to 4 (petitioners herein). The said E.P. is allowed and !h9- J BRMR,J CRP.No.3328 of 2023 salary attachment is ordered as per. order dated 3 1.08.2023.

12. Pe titiorre rs judgment debtor Nos.2 to 4 have alternative and efficacious remedy of appeal under Section 70 ol the Chit Funds Act, 1982.

13. This C.R.P. is filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. When the petitioners have alternative efficacious remedy of appeal under Section 70 of the Chit Funds Act, 1982, they cannot invoke the jurisdiction of this Court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India and the decisions cited by respondent No.1 - decree holder counsel are applicable to the case on hand. Respondent No.1 - decree holder is at liberty to execute the Award against any judgment debtor, which is supported by the decisions cited by him, u,hich are stated supra. I I I I i i 9 tsRMR,.I CRP.No.3328 of 2023

14. Therefore, the petitioners have not made out any case and as the Civil Revision Petition is not maintainable, the same is liable to be dismissed.

15. Accordingly, this Civil Revision Petition is dismissed. 'Ihere shall be no order as to costs. Interim orders if anv shall stand vacated. Miscellaneous Petitions sha,lI stand closed. SD/- C.DEEPIKA ASSISTANT REGISTRAR -..-) / /iTRUE COPY// TION OFFICER \ To,

1. Principal Junior Civil Judge-cum- Judicial Magistrate of First Class at Sangareddy, Sangareddy District.

2. One CC to SRI PALLE SRIHARINATH Advocate [OPUC] 3. One CC to SRl. N AMARNATH Advocate IOPUCI

4. Two CD Copies M PK/PSI, -I DH 14 Ic Y 1 I'I fl 2 ?f,)l + FA 'il t,,y' HIGH COURT DATED:31 11012025 DISMISSED :) J I.:* CRP.No.3328 of 2023 I o\

5. ?b