HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE K. LAKSHMAN CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.752 OF 2025

ORAL ORDER

Heard Mr. Rajesh Bathula, learned counsel for the petitioners and Mr. K. Sai Krishna, learned counsel for respondent No.1.

2. This revision is filed under Section - 227 of the Constitution of India challenging the order dated 05.07.2024 passed in E.P. No.61 of 2022 in Arbitration Case ARB No.868 of 2021 by the Junior Civil Judge at Huzurabad.

3. On the application filed by respondent No.1 vide Arbitration Case ARB No.868 of 2021, the Chit Arbitrator/Deputy Registrar of Chits, Warangal, had passed an award dated 20.06.2022 directing the petitioners herein and respondent Nos.2 and 3 to pay an amount of Rs.6,66,105/- along with interest @ 18% per annum on the principal amount of Rs.4,33,600/- from the date of filing the dispute till the date of realization. They shall also pay Rs.14,441/- 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.61 of 2022 in ARB No.868 of 2021 seeking execution of the said award against the petitioners herein and respondent No.3 for recovery of Rs.7,41,735/- from them. Vide the aforesaid order, learned Junior Civil Judge, directed the Disbursing Officer of the petitioners, to withhold the amount of Rs.8,63,832/- from the monthly salary of the petitioners herein. They are judgment debtor Nos.2 and 3 in the said E.P. Respondent No.2 is the chit subscriber, while the petitioners herein and respondent No.3 are 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 among the 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 Officer of judgment debtor No.4 to withhold the said amount of Rs.8,63,832/- from his salaries as per Section - 60 of CPC after deducting standard deduction plus one thousand and 2/3^rd of remaining gross salary and shall remit balance 1/3^rd of salary every month from the date of receipt of the warrant.

7. Thus, the Executing Court directed the Disbursing Officer of judgment debtor No.2 to 4 to deduct and recover the aforesaid amount from the salaries of judgment debtor Nos.2 to 4 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, the Chit Fund Act, 1982 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)