ORDER :

Challenging the propriety of the warrant of salary attachment, dated

16.11.2019 in E.P.No.852 of 2019 on the file of the XXI Junior Civil Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad, the 1st and 2nd judgment-debtors filed this revision.

2. The brief facts of the case are that the first revision petitioner has subscribed a chit group of the Chit of the Disputant Company for a value of Rs.5 lakhs. The first respondent/first revision petitioner as successful bidder had received the prize amount and the second revision petitioner and two others stood as sureties by submitting all necessary documents. Thereafter, as the first respondent committed default, the Disputant Company approached the Registrar of Chits for recovery of the amount in Arbitration C.F.No.497 of 2018 and the same was allowed vide order dated 31.12.2018 holding that the Disputant Company is entitled to recover Rs.4,74,875/- with interest at 18% per annum on principal amount of Rs.4,12,500/- from the date of application and issued recovery certificate. Basing on the same, the Disputant Company as decree-holder approached the Junior Civil Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad, sought for attachment of salary under Order 21 Rule 48 C.P.C. and the Court had issued warrant of attachment. Aggrieved thereby, the judgment-debtors filed this revision petition.

3. In the revision, the petitioners contested that the Registrar of Chits passed the order against the settled principles of law and even without notice to them. The executing Court failed to observe that they are not State or Central Government employees but non-government employees and filing of execution petition and issuance of impugned warrant without notice to the revision petitioners is bad in law. The Court should have considered the decree-holder’s attitude in filing the petition for wrongful gain. Further the judgment-debtors are the bread winners of the family and they have to spend huge amounts towards medical treatment. Thus, the salary attachment shall be withheld and permit them to file counter in the interest of justice.

4. In counter, the first respondent/DHr/Disputant Company pleaded that the revision petitioners are not disputing the subscription of chit and default by the first revision petitioner. Thereafter, the disputed company had taken up the legal proceedings as per law and the Registrar of Chits had conducted the arbitration proceedings as prescribed in law and though proper notice is served, the revision petitioners failed to appear to contest the proceedings. However, on merits, the Registrar of Chits had passed the orders. Thereafter, for realization of the decretal dues, they have approached the competent civil Court and the Court in execution proceedings rightly issued attachment warrant. Thus, there is no impropriety in any of the proceedings and the revision is devoid of any merit.

5. Heard Mrs P.Nitya, learned counsel for the petitioners and Sri V.S.R.M.V.Prasad Sanaka, learned counsel for the respondent No.1 and perused the record.

6. In these rival claims, the point arises for determination is: whether the impugned attachment warrant of the executing Court is sustainable under law?

7. The undisputed facts reveal that the first revision petitioner is the subscriber of the Chits of the Disputant Company of the first respondent and there was default in payment of subscriptions.

8. The Chit Funds Act, 1982 (for short ‘the Act’) is self contained statute. The Section 64 of the Act contemplates that any dispute touching defaulting subscriber shall be referred to the Registrar for Arbitration and no civil Court shall have jurisdiction to entertain any suit or other proceedings in respect of such dispute. On receipt of the dispute, as per Section 66 of the Act the Registrar of Chits or any other person appointed by him is empowered to settle the dispute by following the procedure under Section 67 of the Act. The Section 69 of the Act specifies that reasonable opportunity to the parties shall be give