The Deputy Registrar of Chits, appointed under Section 61(1) of the Chit Funds Act, is empowered to issue a recovery certificate under Section 71(a), as the definition of 'Registrar' includes Deputy Registrars. Further, a surety's liability is immediate and co-extensive with the principal debtor's, allowing the decree holder to proceed directly against the surety.

ORDER :

Ravi Cheemalapati, J.

This Civil Revision Petition is filed questioning the legality and correctness of the warrant of attachment of the salary dated 29.10.2025 issued in E.P.No.216 of 2025 in Dispute No.41 of 2018 by learned I Additional Civil Judge (Junior Division), Guntur.

2. The petitioner is award-debtor No.7; respondent no.1 is the Award-Holder, respondent nos. 2 to 7 are award-debtor Nos.1 to 6 in E.P.No.216 of 2015 whereas respondent no.8 is the garnishee.

3. The facts that led to filing of this Civil Revision Petition, in brief, are that respondent no.1 filed Dispute Case No.41 of 2018 before the Registrar of Chits, Guntur, under Section 64 of the Chit Fund Act, 1982 for recovery of Rs.6,09,555/- and the Deputy Registrar of Chits, Guntur passed award 21.03.2025. On the ground that the award amount was not paid, the respondent no.1/award-holder filed E.P.No.216 of 2015 for attachment of the salary of the petitioner. The executing court issued warrant of attachment of the salary of the petitioner and the said order has been assailed before this Court.

4. Heard Sri Kolluri Arjun Chowdary, learned counsel for the petitioner, Sri N.Krishna Sai, learned counsel, representing Ms. Sireesha Rani Vallabhaneni, learned counsel for respondent no.1.

5. Sri Kolluri Arjun Chowdary, learned counsel for the petitioner, while reiterating the grounds of the Civil Revision Petition would contend that though the principal debtor is solvent and available, the decree holder without making any effort to recover the decretal due and without exhausting the remedies available against him, had straightaway proceeded against the surety, and hence the warrant of attachment of salary is premature and therefore is liable to be set aside. He would further contend that as per Sections 128 to 145 of the Indian Contract Act, 1872 , the liability of the surety is co-extensive but not primary and hence without proceeding against the principal debtor initiation of execution proceedings against the surety, bypassing the principal debtor, is abuse of process. He would further contend that Section 71 of the Chit Fund Act, read with Rule-55 of the A.P.Chit Fund Rules, 2008, clearly states that it is only the Registrar who has to issue the certificate referred to in the above provisions, even though the dispute has been decided by Deputy Registrar, however, in the instant case, the Deputy Registrar issued the certificate instead of Registrar and on the ground also issuance of warrant of attachment of salary based on the certificate issued by the Deputy Registrar is untenable and the same has to be set aside. He would further contend that the petitioner being a surety only but not the prized subscriber and as the provisions of the Chit Fund Act, 1982 and the Andhra Pradesh Chit Fund Rules, do not provide any safeguards to the surety at the time of contesting the award as well as execution proceedings and as the Act nowhere envisages as to securing of the chit fund amount from the collateral other than the prized subscriber, and permitting the chit fund company to proceed against the surety without making efforts to recover the amount from the prized subscriber would lead to collusion between the Chit Fund Company and prized subscriber to the detriment of the surety. Accordingly, prayed to allow the Civil Revision Petition.

In support of his contentions, the learned counsel for the petitioner relied on the decision in Punyamurthula Venkata Viswa Sundara Rao v. Margadarsi Chit Fund Pvt. Ltd. , and others . 2017(3) ALD 387 and the docket proceedings dated 19.04.2022 of a Division Bench of this Court in Civil Revision Petition No.604 of 2022.

6. On the other hand, Sri N.Krishna Sai, learned counsel, representing Ms.Sireesha Rani Vallabhaneni, learned counsel for respondent no.1 while reiterati