Telangana High Court
Smt.P.Selvi vs M/S.Neeladri Chit Fund Private Limited on 8 April, 2025
Author: G.Radha Rani
Bench: G.Radha Rani
THE HONOURABLE Dr. JUSTICE G.RADHA RANI
CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.1170 of 2019
ORDER:
This Civil Revision Petition is filed by the petitioner-Judgment Debtor (J.Dr.) No.2 aggrieved by the order dated 15.02.2019 in EP No.149 of 2019 in Arbitration Dispute No.338 of 2016 passed by the XIX Junior Civil Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad.
2. Heard Sri Koppula Gopal, learned counsel for the petitioner - J.Dr.No.2 and Sri T. Bala Mohan Reddy, learned counsel for the respondent No.1-Decree Holder (D.Hr.).
3. The learned counsel for the petitioner-J.Dr.No.2 contended that without even ordering notice on the petitioner, the Court below passed the attachment order dated 15.02.2019 attaching the salary of the revision petitioner herein. As such, the very order itself was illegal and arbitrary. It was the obligation on the part of the Decree Holder to serve notice in the EP as well as in the application for attachment of salary. He further contended that the D.Hr. had not followed the procedure prescribed under Rule 55 of the Chit Fund Rules, 2008. The execution proceedings were not initiated in accordance with the provision of 2 Dr.GRR, J CRP No.1170 of 2019 Section 71(a) of the Chit Fund Act, 1982 and relied upon the Division Bench judgment of the common High Court of Telangana and Andhra Pradesh in Punyamurthula Venkata Viswa Sundara Rao v. Margadarsi Chit Fund Pvt. Ltd., Hyderabad and Others 1.
4. The learned counsel for the respondent No.1-D.Hr., on the other hand, contended that no notice need to be issued to the J.Dr., if the EP was filed within two years of passing of the decree as per Order XXI Rule 22 of CPC. The Award copy was served on J.Dr.No.2 on 05.03.2018, but the J.Dr.No.2 had not preferred to challenge the award after receiving it. A recovery certificate under Section 71(a) of the Chit Fund Act, 1982 was issued by the Deputy Registrar on 14.06.2018. The procedure as directed by the Division Bench in Punyamurthula Venkata Viswa Sundara Rao v. Margadarsi Chit Fund Pvt. Ltd., Hyderabad and Others (1 supra) was followed and relied upon the single bench judgment of this Court in CRP No.1610 of 2024 dated 29.11.2024.
5. Perused the record.
1 2017 (3) ALD 387 (DB) 3 Dr.GRR, J CRP No.1170 of 2019
6. As seen from the record, the copy of the award in Arbitration Dispute No.338 of 2016 was served on the J.Dr.No.2 on 05.03.2018, but, the revision petitioner herein i.e. J.Dr. No.2 had not taken any steps for challenging the award. E.P. No.149 of 2019 was filed within two years from the date of passing of the award. As such, no notice need to be issued to the J.Dr. as provided under Order XXI Rule 22 of CPC. The Division Bench of this Court in Punyamurthula Venkata Viswa Sundara Rao v. Margadarsi Chit Fund Pvt. Ltd., Hyderabad and Others (1 supra) clarified that the decree holders had to follow the procedure prescribed under Rule 55 of the Chit Fund Rules, 2008 in getting the award executed. The proper channel, through which the award and certificate had to reach the Executant Court, was through the Registrar. The Registrar was the competent authority to forward the application of the applicant to the proper authority, be it Civil Court, or Revenue Authority for execution along with a certificate issued by him under Section 71 of the Act.
7. In Madamanchi Anil Kumar v. Margadarshi Chit Fund Pvt. Limited 2 it was specified that as per the notification in the Official Gazette issued by the State Government, the Additional, Joint, Deputy 2 2018 SCC OnLine Hyd. 2210 4 Dr.GRR, J CRP No.1170 of 2019 and Assistant Registrars can also discharge the duties of the Registrar of Chits. As the Deputy Registrar had issued the recovery certificate under Section 71(a) of the Chit Funds Act, 1982 ordering that the chit fund company was entitled to recover the due amount from the opponents jointly and severally together with interest @ 18% per annum on the principal amount of Rs.2,52,350/- along with costs of Rs.13,018/-, by approaching the competent Civil Court by filing necessary execution petition and thereafter only, the execution petition was filed in the civil court by the Decree Holder, this Court does not find any error in the order passed by the court below in attaching the salary of the revision petitioner - J.Dr.No.2 herein.
8. In the result, the CRP is dismissed confirming the order dated 15.02.2019 in EP No.149 of 2019 in Arbitration Dispute No.338 of 2016 by the XIX Junior Civil Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad. No order as to costs.
As a sequel, miscellaneous applications pending in this petition, if any, shall stand closed.
____________________ Dr.G. RADHA RANI, J April 08, 2025 KTL