The execution petition against the guarantor is valid and not barred by limitation, affirming the principle of co-extensive liability between principal debtor and guarantor.

ORDER :

This Civil Revision Petition has been preferred challenging the order dated 01.07.2025 passed in E.P.No.4166 of 2022 in A.R.C.No.24 of 2018 on the file of the XXVII Assistant City Civil Court, Chennai. 2. On the arbitration case in A.R.C.No.24 of 2018 filed by the respondent herein against the petitioner herein and others, the Registrar of Chits, Chennai, passed an Award on 07.01.2019 for recovery of sum of Rs.9,37,255/- along with interest at the rate of 24% from the date of filing of the case till the date of realization along with costs and also attached the properties of respondents 1 and 3 therein. As the Award amount has not been paid by the principal debtor/Judgment Debtor- 1(JD), the respondent/decree holder filed E.P.No.4166 of 2022 under Order XXI Rule 48A C.P.C., seeking to attach the salary of petitioner herein/JD-2 payable by the Garnishee of JD2 for realizing the EP claim amount. After hearing, the Execution Court found that there is no impediment to proceed with the execution proceedings and vide order rd dated 01.07.2025, allowed the execution petition and attached 1/3 salary of the petitioner herein/JD2 for a period of 24 months or until satisfaction of Award and as against the said attachment of salary, the petitioner/JD-2 is before this Court.

3. It is the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner that the Arbitral Award was passed on 07.01.2019 and the Execution petition in E.P.No.4166 of 2022 was filed on 29.08.2022. As per Section 71 of the Chit Funds Act, 1982 , execution petition has to be filed within a period of 3 years from the date of passing of Award, whereas, in the present case, E.P.No.4166 of 2022 was filed beyond the period of 3 years and therefore, the execution petition is hit by of the . The petitioner herein is only a guarantor of the principal debtor/JD-I. It is settled law that the co-sureties for the same debt are also equally liable to contribute the debt, which remains unpaid by the principal debtor. In the present case, the creditor/decree holder, without initiating action against the principal debtor or other guarantors, has filed the execution petition only against the petitioner herein/guarantor/JD2 seeking to attach the salary of the petitioner. The learned Judge, without rd considering the facts, attached 1/3 salary of the petitioner alone, which is impermissible under law.

4. It is the further contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner that the immovable properties of the principal debtor have already been attached by the Arbitrator in the Award dated 07.01.2019, subsequently, steps have been taken in respect of the said attachment order by the respondent herein in E.P.No.4168 of 2022 for sale proceedings before the very same Court below and hence, parallel attachment of salary of the petitioner/guarantor/JD2 is not sustainable. As against the Arbitral Award dated 07.01.2019, the petitioner preferred an appeal under Section 70 of the Chit Funds Act, 1982 and it has been taken on file, vide No.8183478/G/2024. Hence lis-pendency of appeal is bar to continue the execution proceedings and hence, attachment of salary of the surety/guarantor is not maintainable and the same is liable to be set aside.

5. Per contra, the learned counsel for the respondent/decree holder submitted that there are two provisions to execute the Award passed by the Registrar of Chits. If the decree holder chooses to execute the Award under the provisions of the Revenue Recovery Act, 1890, the application for execution shall be made within a period of three years from the date fixed in the order. Suppose, if the decree holder chooses to execute the Award invoking the Code of Civil Procedure, the period of limitation would