HON’BLE SMT. JUSTICE RENUKA YARA Civil Revision Petition No.290 of 2025

ORDER:

This revision petition is filed by the petitioner/judgment debtor No.4 aggrieved by the order passed by the learned I Senior Civil Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad in E.P.No.214 of 2018 in AA/CF.No.76 of 2012, dated 02.12.2024.

2. Heard Mr. G. Allabakash, learned counsel for the revision petitioner and Mr. K.S.Sai Pavan, learned counsel for the respondent No.1.

3. The Execution Petition has been filed under Rule 141 (2) of Civil Rules of Practice and Order 21, Rule 11 of Code of Civil Procedure to issue warrant of attachment of salary against the petitioner (Judgement Debtor No.4) herein while not proceeding against respondent Nos.2 to 5 (Judgment Debtor Nos.1 to 3 and 5) only. Vide impugned docket order dated 02.12.2024, the learned I Senior Civil Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad ordered for issuance of salary attachment warrant against the petitioner herein.

4. In grounds of revision, it is pleaded that the impugned order is to attach the salary of the petitioner for an amount of Rs.7,43,382/-. Said attachment order has been passed even though respondent No.1/Decree holder did not file an application for recovery of decreetal amount to the Registrar of Chits for issuance of recovery certificate and realization of decreetal amount. Only when such an application is filed, the Registrar of Chits would issue certificate of recovery to competent Court. Without considering this aspect, the salary attachment warrant was ordered to be issued against the petitioner contrary to Rule 52 of A.P (Telangana) Chit Fund Rules, 2008. The respondent No.1 is claiming total amount of Rs.22,30,146/- from the petitioner and respondent Nos.4 and 5 for an amount of Rs.7,43,382/- each. It is alleged that by recovering such amount from the petitioner and respondent Nos.4 and 5, in effect, the respondent No.1 is recovering three times the amount due under the chit. It is also pleaded that the amount has to be recovered from all the Judgment debtors i.e. petitioner and respondent Nos.2, 4 and 5 instead of the petitioner alone. As such, prayed that the impugned order be set aside.

5. The learned counsel for the revision petitioner relied upon the order of this Court in C.R.P.No.1659 of 2025, dated 02.05.2025 at paragraph No.12, wherein, reference is made to the case of Madamanchi Anil Kumar v. Margadarshi Chit Fund Pvt. Ltd. {C.R.P.No.2338 of 2018, decided on 05.11.2018} about considering the principle laid down by the Division Bench in Punyamurthula Venkata Viswa Sundara Rao v. Margadarsi Chit Fund Pvt. Ltd. {2017 (3) ALT 82 (D.B.), wherein, it is held that the liability of sureties is joint and several. Further, it is held that the contention of the petitioner that Recovery Certificate issued by the Deputy Registrar of Chits cannot be acted upon as per Rule 55 of the Andhra Pradesh Chit Fund Rules, 2008 and the same has been negatived holding that Execution Petition is maintainable. Further, the learned counsel for the revision petitioner referred to the order of this Court in C.R.P.No.2733 of 2022, wherein, it is held that the decree holder can execute his decree against all the judgment debtors in equal proportion.

6. Having regard to the rival contentions, it is seen that this Court has already held in C.R.P.No.1659 of 2025 that a Recovery Certificate issued by the Deputy Registrar of Chits can be acted upon as per Rule 55 of the Andhra Pradesh Chit Fund Rules, 2008 and that an Execution Petition is maintainable. It is also a point to be noted that the Government has issued G.O.Ms.No.260 Revenue (Registration-I), dated 11.10.2016 authorizing the Assistant Registrars and Deputy Registrars of Chits in respective jurisdictions for the purpose of issuing Recovery Certificates which forms basis for filing Execution Petitions before the competent civil courts. Lastly, as per Section 128 of the Indian Contract Act, 1872, in a loan transaction, the liability of sureties or guaran