HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE K. LAKSHMAN CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.1164 OF 2025

ORAL ORDER

Heard Mr. B. Jagadeesh, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri K.P.Vijay Kumar, learned counsel appearing for 1^st respondent.

2. This revision is filed under Section - 115 of Code of Civil Procedure,1908 (for short, ‘the CPC’) to set aside the warrant of attachment dated 13.12.2024 in E.P.No.486 of 2023 in ARB.No.238 of 2020 by the III Additional Junior Civil Judge at Karimnagar. 3. 2^nd respondent is the subscriber of the chit. The petitioner, respondent Nos.3 to 6 are guarantors. 1^st respondent has filed application under Section 64 of the Chit Funds Act,1982 ( for short, ‘the Act’) against the petitioner, respondent Nos.2 to 6 for recovery of an amount of Rs.5,70,270/- along with interest at 18% p.a. on the principle sum of Rs.4,64,044/- from the date of filing of dispute till the date of realization and costs, before the learned Deputy Registrar of Chits/District Registrar, Karimnagar, who in turn passed Award dated 16.05.2023 holding that the petitioner, respondents 2 to 6 are jointly and severely to pay to 1^st respondent.

4. Pursuant to the said award, respondent No.1 herein had filed an execution petition vide E.P. No.486 of 2023 in ARB No.238 of 2020 seeking execution of the said award against the petitioner herein and respondent Nos.2 to 6 for recovery of Rs.4,75,148/- from them. Learned Executing Court has issued warrant of attachment dated 13.12.2024. Challenging the said order, the petitioner filed the present writ petition.

5. The Executing Court has issued similar attachment to respondent Nos.2 to 4 and 6. Therefore, by virtue of the said attachment orders, there would be recovery of four times of the amount awarded by the Chit Arbitrator. The same is impermissible.

6. It is contended by learned counsel for the petitioner herein that the Executing Court did not order for proportionate deduction from the petitioner and respondent Nos.2 to 4 and 6. Before passing the order, the Executing Court neither issued notice, nor provided opportunity of hearing.

7. It is also relevant to note that, it appears that learned Executing Court issued similar orders against respondent Nos.2 to 4 and 6 for attachment of movable properties.

8. Thus, the Executing Court directed to recover the aforesaid amount from the petitioner and respondent Nos.2 to 4 and 6 each. If the said amount is recovered and remitted to the account of the aforesaid E.P., it amounts to recovery of more than the awarded amount. Thus, the same is in violation of the procedure laid down under Contract Act, and also the principle laid down by this Court. The said aspects were not considered by the Executing Court while issuing impugned attachment orders.

9. It is relevant to extract Order - XXI, Rules - 11 (2), 48 and

48A of the CPC and the same are as under:

“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