THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE K. LAKSHMAN CIVIL REVISION PETITION No. 1645 of 2025

ORDER:

Heard Sri Bathula Rajesh, learned counsel for petitioners and Sri K.P. Vijay Kumar, learned counsel for respondent, Chit Fund Company.

2. This Civil Revision Petition is filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India challenging the order dated 18.12.2024 passed by the learned IV Additional Junior Civil Judge, Karimnagar, in E.P.No.345 of 2024 in ARB.No.506 of

2021.

3. Perusal of record would reveal that 1^st petitioner is the subscriber of the chit with the respondent. Petitioner Nos.2 to 5 stood as guarantors to 1^st petitioner. The respondent/Decree Holder, Chit Fund Company, had filed an application vide ARB.No.506 of 2021 under Section 64 of the Chit Funds Act, 1982 (for short ‘the Act, 1982’), before the Chit Arbitrator/Deputy Registrar of Chits, Karimnagar, against petitioners, claiming an amount of Rs.6,34,747/- along with interest @ 18% per annum on the principal amount of Rs.5,25,850/- from the date of filing of dispute till the date of realization. Vide Award dated 28.05.2024, the learned Chit Arbitrator/Deputy Registrar of Chits held that the petitioners are jointly and severally liable to pay a sum of Rs.6,34,747/- along with interest @18% per annum on the principal amount of Rs.5,25,850/- from the date of filing of dispute till the date of realization.

4. Thereafter, respondent had filed E.P.No.345 of 2024 in ARB.No.506 of 2021 under Order XXI Rule 43 of CPC against the petitioners for recovery of the said amount by way of attachment of their movable properties. The said Execution Petition is pending.

5. The petitioners filed the present Civil Revision Petition challenging the said Execution Proceedings itself contending that the respondent cannot recover the entire awarded amount from each of the petitioners and the same is in violation of the procedure laid down under the Indian Contract Act, 1872 (for short ‘the Act, 1872’), and the Act, 1982.

6. It is relevant to extract Order XXI Rule 11(2) CPC hereunder:

“Order 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 of the decree sought to be executed;

(h) the amount of the costs (if any) awarded;

(i) the name of the person against whom execution of the decree is sought; and (j) the mode in which the assistance of the Court is required whether-

(i) by the delivery of any property specifically decreed;

(ii) by the attachment, or by the attachment and sale, or by the sale without attachment, of any property;

(iii) by the arrest and detention in prison of any person;

(iv) by the appointment of a receiver;

otherwise, as the nature of the relief granted may require.”

7. The aforesaid provision of law would reveal that for realization of the amount covered under the arbitral award, decree holder has to file an application under Order XXI Rule 11(2) CPC. Accordingly, respondent had filed the aforesaid E.P.No.345 of 2024.

8. It is further relevant to extract Section 71 of the Act, 1982, hereunder:

“71. Money how recovered.—Every order passed by the Registrar or the