JUDGMENT :

M. Seetharama Murti, J.

1. The unsuccessful 4th Judgment Debtor filed this revision petition, under Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, assailing the order, dated 03.04.2019, of the learned Principal Senior Civil Judge, Ongole, passed in E.P. No. 179 of 2016 in ARC. No. 116 of 2015.

2. We have heard the submissions of Sri V.N. Anagani, learned counsel representing Sri P. Subhash, learned counsel, appearing for the petitioner/4th Judgment Debtor ('4th J Dr', for brevity); and, of Sri P. Durga Prasad, learned counsel appearing for the 1st respondent/Decree Holder ('DHr', for brevity). We have perused the material record.

3. To begin with, the introductory facts, which are perceptible from the contents of the material record and the submissions made, in brief, are as follows:

The 1st respondent - DHr Chit Fund Company having obtained an award filed the subject EP for attachment of the salaries of some of the JDrs including the present petitioner - 4th JDr. The 4th JDr and other JDrs resisted the EP by filing counter. By the orders impugned in this revision, the Court below over ruled the objections of the contesting JDrs and inter alia directed issuance of warrants for attachments of salaries of the JDrs 2, 4 & 7 and directed the respective garnishees of the said JDrs to withhold Rs. 20,000/-, Rs. 20,000/- and Rs. 13,000/- from the respective salaries of the JDrs 2, 4 & 7 till the realisation of the decree debt or 24 months, whichever is earlier. Aggrieved thereof, the present revision petition is filed by the 4th JDr.

4. The case of the DHr in support of the request in the afore-stated EP is this: - 'The DHr obtained the award, dated 20.05.2016, against the JDrs. After the Award, the DHr made several requests to the JDrs to pay the amount covered by the award. Though the JDrs 2, 4 & 7 are Government employees and are having sufficient means to discharge the debt due to the DHr under the award, they had failed to discharge the said debt. Hence, the EP is filed for attachment of salaries of the said JDrs.'

5. Per contra, the case of the 4th JDr as stated in his counter is this: The EP is not maintainable under facts and in law. He is working as a teacher in Uppugunduru. The 1st JDr died. His legal heirs are in possession of the estate of the deceased 1st JDr. They are in a position to discharge the entire decree debt. The DHr has to file EP for recovery of the debt against the estate of the deceased. There are already some attachments against the salary of this JDr. The DHr has no right to seek attachment of the salary of this JDr. Hence, the EP may be dismissed.

6. As already noted, the executing Court over ruled the objections of the 4th JDr in his counter and ordered attachment of his salary as well by the impugned order.

7. Learned counsel for the 4th JDr contended as follows: 'The person who filed the EP on behalf of the DHr chit fund company has no authorization. The executing Court did not understand the ambit and scope of Section 128 of the Indian Contract Act, 1872. The executing Court ought to have seen that this JDr, being a guarantor, cannot be saddled with the responsibility and liability to pay the decree debt until the remedies against the principal debtor are exhausted. Instead of fastening the liability on this JDr, who is a poor teacher, liability should have been fastened on the other JDrs and the DHr ought to have proceeded against the estate of the deceased 1st JDr, which is in the hands of his legal heirs. As per Rule 71 of the Chit Fund Act, the DHr has to obtain a certificate from the Registrar to refer the execution petition to the civil Court as per the decision of the High Court in Punyamantula Venkata Viswa Sunidara Rao and another v. M/s. Margadarsi Chit Fund Private Limited. The EP is not maintainable. Rule 55 of the A.P. Chit Funds Rules, 2008, lays down that execution proceedings should be initiated by party concerned in accordance with the provisions of Section 71 of the Chit Fund A