HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE K. LAKSHMAN CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.897 of 2025

ORDER

Heard Sri V. Yadu Krishna Sainath, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri K.P.Vijay Kumar, learned counsel appearing for 1^st respondent. Perused the record.

2. Respondent No.2 is subscriber of the chit maintained by respondent No.1 Company. The petitioner herein and respondent Nos.3 to 6 are sureties. Respondent No.2 failed in repaying the said chit amount. Therefore, 1^st respondent has filed an application under Section 64 of Chit Fund Act, 1982 before the Chit Arbitrator/Deputy Registrar of Chits vide AR.B.No.371 of 2021 for recovery of an amount of Rs.6,05,462/- along with interest @ 18% per annum on the principle amount of Rs.5,03,422/- till the date of realization of the said amount and cost of the litigation from the petitioner and respondent Nos.2 to 6. Learned Chit Arbitrator has passed an award dated 20.06.2023 holding that both the petitioner and respondent Nos.2 to 6 are jointly and severally liable to pay the said amount. Since they failed to pay the said amount, 1st respondent has filed an Execution Petition vide E.P.No.4 of 2024 for execution of the said award and realization of the said amount against judgment debtor Nos.3,4, 5 and 6 including the petitioner herein.

3. Petitioner herein is J.Dr.No.5. Learned Executing Court has passed salary attachment Order dated 08.01.2024 directing the Disbursing Officer of the petitioner herein to withhold an amount of Rs.8,57,310/-. The learned Executing Court has also passed similar orders to withhold the aforesaid amount from J.Dr.Nos.3, 4 and 6 each. Thus, according to the learned counsel for the petitioner, learned Executing Court directed all the disbursing officers of J.Dr.Nos.3,4,5 and 6 to withhold an amount of Rs.8,57,310/-each from their salaries.

4. Challenging the said order, the petitioner herein filed the present Civil Revision Petition.

5. The said issue is no more res integra as this Court has already considered the said aspect in Sri Bandi Chandra Hari v. Brindavan Chits Karimnagar (India) Private Ltd.,, 1. CRP No.1237 of 2024, decided on 03.05.2024 holding that decree-holder cannot recover double the awarded amount from the judgment debtors and it is entitled for the decretal amount and interest as claimed by it from the judgment debtors.

6. The relevant portion of the order is extracted as under:

“8. It is also relevant to extract Order - XXI, Rules - 11 (2), 48 and 48A of the CPC and the same is 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) 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;

(v) otherwise,