The High Court · 2025

Counsel for the Respondent: SRI N AMARNATH The Court made the following: ORDER THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE NARSING RAO NANDIKONDA - CTVIL RDVISION PETITION NO.6591 of 2018 ORDER: This Civil Revision Petirion is filed under Articl e 227 of Constitution of India against the order passed by the learned Principal Junior Civil Judge, Warangal in E.p.No. lO7 of 2OlZ (New No.379 ot 2022) in Arbitration Case No.AAl CF /29812Ot6.

2. Heard Ms.Geetha, learned counsel for the revision petitioners and Sri N.Amarnath, learned counsel for the respondents. The parties herein shall be referred as Decree Holder and Judgment Debtor as in Execution petition.

3. Brief facts of the case are that respondent/ decree holder has filed an application before the Deputy Registrar of Chits, Regional Office, Waralgal. An Arbitration case was filed by the decree holder seeking to resolve the dispute between the decree holder and the judgment debtor in respect of the recovery of sum of Rs.2,7 I,0761- including the interest and the costs. Admittediy, the petitioner herein is the principa.t borrower/ subscriber with the respondent chit company and that the 1"t Judgment Debtor was successfui bidder ald he was paid prize money and he also furnished security -and the J.Dr Nos.2 to 5 stood as \ guarantors to the J.Dr.No.1 as the J.Dr No.1 I 2 committed default, as such the decree holders have filed an application before the Deputy Registrar of the Ct its and which 1ed to passing of award under section 69 of Chit a rnd Act, L982 for recovery of the said amounts from the petiticr srs,/Judgment Debtors herein.

4. The petitioners/Judgment Debtors herein h i s preferred an appeal as provided under the Act before the Prin< ipal Secretary, Revenue(Chit Appellate Authority),Tela-ngana vidt' Appeal No.107 of 2017, against the said arvard, wherein the le z Secretar5r to the Government granted stay for t: rned Principal ree months or disposal of the case, whichever is earlier, on 11

04.2017. It is submitted that the said stay has not been extenc r d further as of noui there being no stay, the respondent/J.Dr h r ze already hled the present Execution Petition. In the said E.l ., the learned Judge allowed the petition and ordered issuar ce of movable attachment warrants under Order XXI Rule 4ll )f CPC against E.P. schedule movable properties belong to the 'l Dr Nos.l to 5. The same is being assailed before this Court n the present revision, contending that the learned Judge did : rt consider the objections raised by the J.Dr's though they fi1t:r I a counter on

30.O1.2O18, and without considering the cont :ntions of the J.Drs the executing Court has passed such or(er.

5. Admittedly, it is not in dispute that the J.Dr's filed a counter before the executing Court on 30.01.20 18, vide S.R.No.360 of 2018. On perusal of the order of the trial/ executing Court, it is evident that though the record clearly states and reflects that a counsel was also r:epresenting for the Judgrnent Debtors, but contrary to the sarne the learned Judge held that though notices served on J.Dr Nos. 1 to 5, they did not choose to appear before the Court and hence they were set ex parte. It rs not in dispute that as on the date of the said order the petitioners had already filed their counter and the same is part of the record

6. Though, the learned counsel for the respondents submits that as there u,'as no representation for the J.Dr's before the tria-l Court, as such the learned Judge has rightly allowed the Execution Petition and that the petitioners are making averments to divert/ delay the matter without making any comments and averments over the decree awarded against them, admittedly, the order passed by the learned Judge appears to be without considering the counter filed by the petitioners and without affording them arr opportunity to make their submissions. It thus appears that no proper opportunity was provided to the J.Dr's to make their submissions and the order 4 not being on merits deserves to be set aside. ;\:cordingiy, the revision deserves to be allowed.

7. In the result, the Civil Revision petition is cl a direction, directing the executing Court to h r afresh. taking into consideration the counter file( and b_v giving arr opportunity to both parties tc sposed of lr,ith ar the matter b1, the J.Dr's advalce their contentions, and thereafter proceed in accordatr: : with law on m erits.

8. Further, it is directed to dtspose the E.p. as expeditiously as possible, as it pertains to the vear 2017, and. ri.i hout granting any unnecessary adjournments, If aly party seekr; adjournment, the learned executing Court is at liberty to dispos: of the matter on the available records and on merits. Miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending ir this revision petition sha_ll stand closed. SD/. . LAKSHMI BABU DEt UTY REGISTRAR \ J /,TRUE COPY// T ECTION OFFICER To,

1. The V Additional Junior Civil Judge' Warangal 2. The Deputy Registrar of Chits, Regional Office' Waran I rl 3. One CC to SRI T.GEETA Advocate [OPUC] 4 One CC to SRI N. AMARNATH Advocate [OPUC] 5. Two CD CoPies V, NVB/?S &' I -=*.**-*-<., ir=+i€*rFE!aF--+:=ea=:j- .-*a HIGH COURT DATED:1911112025 ORDER CRP.No.6591 of 2018 HE STA, f': o 0 5 l1:,3 ) 6 * c,t,t **----' DISPOSING THE CIVIL REVISION PETI'I'ON 4 -x{A t$" l l i l I i I I I i j I I I t I I I I ! l