HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE K. LAKSHMAN CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.806 OF 2025

ORAL ORDER

Heard Mr. Gudi Madhusudhan Reddy, learned counsel for the petitioner. Despite service of notice, there is no representation on behalf of respondent No.1. As per cause-title, it is mentioned that respondent Nos.2 to 4 are not necessary parties to the present CRP.

2. This revision is filed under Section - 227 of the Constitution of India challenging the order dated 22.11.2024 passed in E.P. No.303 of 2024 in Arbitration Case ARB No.621 of 2021 by the III Additional Junior Civil Judge at Karimnagar.

3. On the application filed by respondent No.1 vide Arbitration Case ARB No.621 of 2021, the Chit Arbitrator/Deputy Registrar of Chits, Warangal, had passed an award dated 29.04.2024 directing the petitioner herein and respondent Nos.2 to 4 to pay an amount of Rs.2,18,959/- along with interest @ 18% per annum on the principal amount of Rs.1,81,644/- from the date of filing the dispute till the date of realization jointly and severally. They shall also pay Rs.4,830/-

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.303 of 2024 in ARB No.621 of 2021 seeking execution of the said award against the petitioner herein and respondent No.3 for recovery of Rs.3,37,277/- from them. Vide the aforesaid order, learned III Additional Junior Civil Judge directed the Disbursing Officer of the petitioner and respondent No.3, to withhold the amount of Rs.3,37,277/- each from the monthly salary of the petitioner and respondent No.3 herein. They are judgment debtor Nos.2 and 3 in the said E.P. Respondent No.2 herein is the chit subscriber, while the petitioner herein and respondent Nos.3 and 4 are the guarantors for the subject chit.

5. It is contended by learned counsel for the petitioner herein that the Executing Court did not order for proportionate deduction from judgment debtor Nos.2 and 3. 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 order directing the Disbursing Officer of judgment debtor No.3 to withhold the said amount of Rs.3,37,277/- 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 and 3 to deduct and recover the aforesaid amount from the salaries of judgment debtor Nos.2 and 3 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 s