HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE K. LAKSHMAN CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.1271 OF 2025

ORAL ORDER

Heard Mr.Sourabh Agarwal, learned counsel for the petitioners.

Despite service of notice, there is no representation on behalf of respondent Nos.1 and 2.

2. This revision is filed under Section - 227 of the Constitution of India challenging the order dated 12.11.2024 passed in E.P. No.306 of 2024 in Arbitration Case ARB No.230 of 2023 by the Principal Junior Civil Judge at Karimnagar.

3. On the application filed by respondent No.1 vide Arbitration Case ARB No.230 of 2023, the Chit Arbitrator/Deputy Registrar of Chits, Warangal, had passed an award dated 29.04.2024 directing the petitioners herein and respondent No.2 to pay an amount of Rs.3,88,760/- along with interest @ 18% per annum on the principal amount of Rs.3,43,943/- from the date of filing the dispute till the date of realization jointly and severally. They shall also pay Rs.9,780/-

towards costs of the arbitration proceedings.

4. Pursuant to the said award, respondent No.1 herein had filed an execution petition vide E.P. No.306 of 2024 in ARB No.230 of

2023 seeking execution of the said award against the petitioners herein and respondent No.2 for recovery of Rs.4,19,745/- from them. Vide the aforesaid order, learned Principal Junior Civil Judge, at Karimnagar, directed the Disbursing Officers of the petitioners and respondent No.2, to withhold the amount of Rs.4,19,745/- each from the monthly salary of the petitioners and respondent No.2 herein. They are judgment debtors Nos.1 to 6 in the said E.P. Respondent No.2 herein is the chit subscriber, while the petitioners herein are the guarantors for the subject chit.

5. It is contended by learned counsel for the petitioners herein that the Executing Court did not order for proportionate deduction from judgment debtors. Before passing the order, the Executing Court neither issued notice, nor provided opportunity of hearing.

6. It is also relevant to note that, it appears that learned Executing Court issued similar orders directing the Disbursing Officers of the petitioners and respondent No.2 to withhold the said amount of Rs.4,19,745/- from salaries of the petitioners

7. Thus, the Executing Court directed the Disbursing Officers of judgment debtors to deduct and recover the aforesaid amount from their salaries each. If the Disbursing Officer withholds the said amount and remits 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 salary attachment orders.

8. 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 sought; and (j) t