The executing court must adhere to prescribed statutory procedures in recovery actions, especially in avoiding double recovery from judgment debtors.

ORDER :

K. Lakshman, J.

Heard Sri Rajesh Bathula, learned counsel for the petitioners and Sri K.P.Vijay Kumar Goud, learned counsel for the respondent No.1. Perused the record.

2. This Civil Revision Petition is filed under Section 115 of the C.P.C. challenging the attachment order, dated 20.12.2024 passed in E.P.No.373 of 2024 in ARB.No.1062 of 2021 by the learned Principal Junior Civil Judge, Karimnagar.

3. The petitioners herein are J.Dr.Nos.2, 3, 6 & 7 in E.P.No.373 of 2024 in ARB.No.1062 of 2021 pending on the file of learned Principal Junior Civil Judge, Karimnagar. Respondent No.1 has filed an application under Section 64 of the Chit Fund Act, 1982 vide ARB.No.1062 of 2021 before the Chit Arbitrator/Deputy Registrar of Chits, Karimnagar, claiming an amount of Rs.4,69,913/- along with interest @ Rs.18% p.a on the principal amount of Rs.3,64,172/- from petitioners and respondent Nos. 2 to 4. The Chit Arbitrator has passed an award, dated 30.05.2023 holding that the petitioners and respondent Nos. 2 to 4 herein are jointly and severally liable to pay the said amount.

4. Thereafter, respondent No.1 has filed E.P.No.373 of 2024 in ARB.No.1062 of 2021 for execution of the said award. Vide impugned salary attachment order, dated 20.12.2024, the Executing Court directed the Salary Disbursement Officers of J.Dr.Nos.3 & 6 to withhold an amount of Rs.3,00,323/- each from the salary of J.Dr.Nos.3 & 6 as per Section 60 of C.P.C. after deducting standard deduction plus one thousand and 2/3rd of remaining gross salary and shall remit the balance 1/3^rd of salary every month from the date of receipt of the warrant. Challenging the said attachment order dated 20.12.2024, the petitioners herein filed the present revision.

5. Learned counsel for the petitioners contended that the Executing Court has issued similar salary attachment orders in respect of other J.Drs. Therefore, the same is in violation of the procedure laid down under the CONTRACT ACT , Chit Funds Act, 1982 and also the principle laid down by this Court vide order, dated 03.05.2024 in C.R.P.No.1237 of 2024.

6. Whereas, Sri K.P. Vijay Goud, learned counsel for respondent No.1 fairly submitted that the impugned salary attachment order, dated 20.12.2024 issued by the Executing Court against J.Dr.Nos.3 & 6 is contrary to the procedure laid down under the CONTRACT ACT , Chit Funds Act and also the principle laid down by this Court vide order, dated 03.05.2024 in C.R.P.No.1237 of 2024.

7. It is also relevant to extract Order - XXI, Rules -11 (2) and 48 of the CPC and the same are as under:

“XXI Rule 11 (2) of CPC-Written application Save as otherwise provided by sub-rule(1), every application for the execution of a decree shall be in writing, signed and verified by the applicant or by some other person proved to the satisfaction of the Court to be acquainted with the facts of the case, and shall contain in a tabular form the following particulars, namely-

(a) the number of the suit;

(b) the names of the parties;

(c) the date of the decree;

(d) whether any appeal has been preferred from the decree;

(e) whether any, and (if any) what, payment or other adjustment of the matter in controversy has been made between the parties subsequently to the decree;

(f) whether any, and (if any) what, previous applications have been made for the execution of the decree, the dates of such applications and their results;

(g) the amount with interest (if any) due upon the decree, or other relief granted thereby, together with particulars of any cross-decree, whether passed before or after the date