The High Court · 2025

Dooda Rajanarsu, S/o Narsalals, age. 51 years, H.No. 9-15211, Arunakka Nagar, Srirampur, Mancherial- District, (SchoolAsu, M PllPS, Sumpatam, Mandal-Vermanpally, Mancherial District.)

7. Samr.rdrala Nagalaxmi, W/o Santmaiah, Aqe. 44 years, H.No. '12-9, Gandhi Nagerr, RK-6 Huts Area, Srirampur, Mancherial- District. (Telugu Pandit Grade-ll, M.PUP.S, Kalmalpet, Mandal-Vemanpailly, Mancherial- District.) 8. The l'lead Master (Disbursement Officer), ZPSS, Chinnoor Mandal, Chinnoor, Man<:herila District. ...RespondenUOHR lA NO: 2 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 STAY all frrther proceedings in E.P. No. 18 of 2025 in ARB No. 12 of 2024, an the file of the Honble Prl. Senior Civil Judge, Mancherial, pending disposal of the revision petition. Counsel for the Petitioner : Sri. S Rama Mohan Rao Counsel forthe Respondent No.'l : Ms. P. Durga Prasad Standing Counsel for Margadarsi Chit Fund CIVIL REVITSION TITION NO: 3597 OF 2025 Petition under Afticle 227 of the Constitution of lndia aggrieved by the order passed in E P. No. 106 of 2025, in ARB No. 14 of 2024 on the file of the Court of the Principal Senior Civil Judge, At Mancherial. Between: Bandari Swaroopa, Wo. S. Mahender, Aged about 39 years, R/o. H.No. 11-48, Ljne Gaclda, Chinnoor District, Mancherial. (Saree Business, Chinnoor, Macherial District.) .Petitionels/JDRs AND 1 2 3 M/s. lularga{arsi Chit Fund Pvt Ltd., Mancherial Rep.by its Manager cum Forernan P.Ramakrishna, S/o Kishtu, Age.42 years, R/o. Mancherial- District. Siran,li Mahender, S/o. Madanaiah, Aged about43 years, Ryo. H.No. 11-48, Line Gadda, Chinnoor, Mancherial District. (School Asst.M.P.U.P.S, Kalm;rlpet, Vemanpally Mandal, Mancherial District) Karengula Jyothi,, Wo. H. Laxmi Narsimha, Aged about 43 years, R/o. H.No. 14-18412, Mangal Bazar, hinnor, Macherial District. (T G T, T S W R S J C, Nirmal, Nirmal District.)

4. Challa Rajesh, S/o. Ch. Chandraramouli, Aged about /14 years, Rt/o. H 19, Prppala Hanuman temple street, Chinnoor, Mancherial District. (S Mdl-C:hinnor, Mancherial Diskict.) No. 27- GT,

5. Kasturi Sunil Kumar,, S/o. K. Kistaiah, Aged about 39 ye 141, Kothagudem Colony, Chinnoor, Mahcherial District. Kethanpally, Mdl-Vemanpallv, Mancherial District. ) ars, R/o. H.No.5- (SGT,MPPS

6. The Head Master (Disbursement Officer), ZPSS, Neelwai, Vemanpally Mandal, Mancherial District. ...RespondenUDHR lA NO: 1OF 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 all further proceedings in E.P. No. 106 of 2025 in ARB No. 14 of 2024, on the file of the Prl.Senior Civil Judge, Mancherial, pending disposal of the revision petition. Counsel for the Petitioner : Sri. S Rama Mohan Rao Gounsel for the Respondent ffo. t : [/[s. P. Durga Prasad Standing Counsel for Margadarsi Chit Fund The Court made the following: ORDER THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE N. TUKARAMJI CIYU- REVISION PETITION Nos.3575 and 3597 of 2025 COMMON ORDER: Flavins regard to the Eact rhat the petitioners are the jtrd.qment dcbtors 1 and 3 in the decree passcd in Arbitral pr<tcceclirLgs and they are contesting the issuance o[ attachment warrants, these revision petitions arc heard together and arc being disposcd of l-r1' rhis common order

2. 'l'he sc (-ivil Revision Petitions have been filed assailing the attachment orders passed in E.P. Nos. 1B and 106 of 2025, arising out'of Allll Nos. 1,2 and 1'4 of 2024, on rhe file of the learned Principal .Iunior Cir,il Judge, Mancherial

3. I-Iearcl learned counsel for the peritioners and N{s.P.Durga Prasad, I,:arned Sranding Counsei for Margadarsi Chit F'und Company/respondent No. 1 /DHR holder

4. 'fhe revision petitioners are JDR Nos.1 and 3 respectively J 2

5. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the revision petitioner/JDR Nos. 1 is read1, and wiiling to discharge the entire decretal dues. It is furthcr submitted rhat, he is on the verge of retirement, he is particularly concerned that his salary should not be subjected to attachment at this stage

6. Having regard to the submissions advanccd, and in view o[ the categorical statement that the revision petitioner/JDR Nos. 1 is prepared to clear the entire decretal liabilir1', this Court is of the I considered opinion that an opportuniry ought to be afforded to them to liquidate the dues directly before the Executing Court. 'fhi"S direction is consistent with the settled principle that the object of execution proceedings is the satisfaction of the decree (see. Topanmal Chhotamal u. Kundomal Gungaram, t\lR 1960 SC 388), and that coercive Processes such as attachment are not to be continued once the judgment debtors demonstfate bona fide readiness to satis$r the decree. Accordingly, the petitionefs are directed to approach the Executing Court, place the willingness on record, and discharge the decretal dues. Upon such complianoB - 3 the Executing Court shall pass appropriare orders, including recall of the at:acl-rment orders, in accordance with law. Such exercise shall be <:ornplcted s'ithin a period oi four (0-l) rveeks from the clate o[ rece ipr of a copt, of this order

7. V'ith rhis direction, rhese Civil Revision Petirions are disposed ,rt-. 'l'hcre shall be no order as ro cosrs. \,[is,:cllarlcous Pctitions, pending if an1., shall stand closed. SD/- V.KAV!THA DEPUTY REGISTRAR //TRUE COPYII SECTION OFFICER To,

1. The P'incipal Senior Civil Judge, At Mancherial. 2. One CC to Sri. S Rama Mohan Rao, Advocate [OPUC] 3. One CC to Ms. P. Durga Prasad Standing Counselfor Margadarsi Chit Fund loPUol

4. Two CD Copies DL/PSL YY HIGH COUIRT DATED:2610912025 COMMON CRDER CRP.Nos.3!i75 and 3597 of 2025 f' o L) THE S oi, 3 0 JAl.l 2026 * *