THE HONOURABLE SMT. JUSTICE RENUKA YARA CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.1989 of 2024

ORDER:

Heard Sri M. Damodar Reddy, learned counsel for the revision petitioners and Sri N. Amarnath, learned counsel for the respondent.

Perused the entire record.

2. This Civil Revision Petition is preferred challenging E.P.No.109 of 2024 on the file of the Principal Junior Civil Judge, Ranga Reddy District at L.B.Nagar, (‘Executing Court’), which was filed by the respondent for enforcing of Arbitration award dated 28.12.2022 in A.C.P.No.708 of 2020 passed by the Deputy Registrar of Chits/Arbitrator Hyderabad (West) at Sony Complex, Prashanth Nagar, Kukatpally, Hyderabad.

3. In A.C.P.No.708 of 2020, the award was passed directing the revision petitioners herein to pay an amount of Rs.4,00,738/- along with interest at 18% per annum on the principal amount of Rs.3,04,450/- from the date of dispute till the date of realization. Further, costs of Rs.17,639/- are also awarded. The said amount is to be recovered from the revision petitioners/JDRs. The said E.P.No.109 of 2024 is challenged primarily on the mode of proper transmission of award from the Arbitrator to the Civil Court. Any award passed by the Arbitrator under Chit Funds Act, 1982, has to be enforced under Rule 55 of the Chit Fund Rules, 2008. However, without following such a recourse the respondent has straight away filed the E.P. and therefore, the E.P. is unlawful. There was no transfer of award for the purpose of execution by the Arbitrator to the civil Court. Until there is transfer of the award under Rule 55 of the Chit Fund Rules, 2008, the civil Court has no jurisdiction to entertain E.P. for enforcement of the award on the basis of the recovery certificate, as such prayed to dismiss the E.P.

4. The respondent opposed the present C.R.P. on the ground that there is a valid transfer of the award for the purpose of execution. The respondent filed counter denying obtaining salary attachment order against revision petitioners vide order dated 27.04.2024 unlawfully. According to respondent, the Executing Court has rightly issued the salary attachment warrants since there was no apportionment of liability of the revision petitioners. Further, it is alleged that no appeal has been preferred before the Principal Secretary, Stamps and Registration, Hyderabad, under Section 70 of the Chit Funds Act, 1982, within two months and therefore, award has become final. The Deputy Registrar of Chits has addressed a letter/permission to the Principal Junior Civil Judge, Ranga Reddy District at L.B.Nagar, for execution of the award and therefore, there is proper transmission of the award. As per G.O.Ms.No.260, dated 11.10.2016, the Deputy Registrar of Chits is conferred with all the powers of the Registrar of Chits. The entire process is in conformity with the law and there is no illegality, as such sought dismissal of the present revision.

5. Learned counsel for the revision petitioners relied upon the judgments of this Court in Madamanchi Anil Kumar v. Margadarshi Chit Fund Private Limited, Cr.P.No.2338 of 2018, dated 05.11.2018., Punyamurthula v. Margadarshi Chit Fund Private Limited, 2017 (3) ALD 387, M. Ravinder Reddy v. The State of Telangana and others ³ , P. Bhagya Laxmi and others v. M/s. Shriram Raghavendra Chits⁴, Narahari Balraju and others v. M/s. Neestham Chits Private Limited⁵and Vadla Nagesh Kumar v. M/s. Shriram Raghavendra Chits (P) Limited⁶. The aforementioned citations uphold requirement of transmission of award under Rule 55 of the Chit Fund Rules, 2008, by Deputy Registrar of Chits to the Civil Court/District Court. 6. In that regard, learned counsel for the respondent denied the applicability of the aforementioned judgments and relied upon the order of Division Bench of this Court in C.R.P.No.2338 of 2018 and order of Single Bench in C.R.P.No.2876 of 2024.

7. The award passed by the Deputy Registrar has to be forwarded to the competent Civil Court for execution. The transmission of the a