HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE K. LAKSHMAN CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.111 OF 2025

ORDER

Heard Sri Y.Yadu Krishna Sainath, learned counsel for the petitioners - Judgment Debtor Nos.3 and 4. Despite service of notice, there is no representation on behalf of respondent No.1 - Decreeholder. Respondent Nos.2 to 4 are not necessary parties and the said fact is mentioned in cause title itself.

2. This revision is filed under Section - 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, challenging the order dated 10.10.2024 passed in E.P. No.464 of 2022 in ARB. No.963 of 2021 by the learned II Additional Junior Civil Judge at Karimnagar.

3. Respondent No.1 had filed an application under Section 64 of the Chit Fund Act, 1982 before the Chit Arbitrator/Deputy Registrar of Chits at Karimnagar against the petitioners and respondent Nos. 2 to 4 herein for recovery of Rs.6,71,087/- with interest at the rate of Rs.18% p.a. from the date of filing of dispute till the date of realization of said amount and costs.

4. The Deputy Registrar of Chits at Karimnagar, has passed an award dated 26.06.2023 holding that the petitioners and respondents 2 to 4 herein are jointly and severally liable to pay an amount of Rs.6,71,087/- with interest at 18% p.a. to the 1^st respondent herein., 5. 1^st respondent has filed E.P.No.464 of 2023 in ARB No.963 of 2021 for execution of the aforesaid Award. Learned II Additional Junior Civil Judge at Karimnagar, has issued impugned salary attachment orders both dated 10.10.2024 directing the Disbursing Officer of the petitioners herein i.e. The Executive Engineer, Division No.8, Irrigation Department, Rajanna Sircilla District, to withhold the sum of Rs.9,17,190/- from the monthly salary of the petitioners and remit the asid amount to the account of the aforesaid EP.

6. It is also relevant to note that, learned Executing Court has issued similar orders directing the Disbursing Officers of the petitioners herein/J.Dr.Nos.3 and 4 to withhold the said amount of Rs.9,17,190/- each from their 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. Challenging the said attachment orders both dated

10.10.2024, the petitioners herein/J.Drs.3 and 4 filed the present revision.

8. Perusal of the aforesaid salary attachment orders both dated

10.10.2024 issued by the Executing Court in respect of the petitioners/J.Drs.3 and 4 would reveal that Executing Court has directed the Disbursing Officer of the petitioners herein to withhold the amount of Rs.9,17,190/- from the salaries of both of them. Learned Executing Court has also passed similar salary attachment orders in respect of other J.Drs. The Executing Court directed the Disbursing Officers of the petitioners herein to deduct and recover an amount of Rs.9,17,190/- each from their salaries. In fact, the aforesaid execution petition was filed by respondent No.1 - decree-holder to execute the award for recovery of Rs.9,17,190/- each from their salaries. If the Disbursing Officer withhold the said amount and remit to the account of the aforesaid EP, it amounts to recovery of more than the awarded amount. 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 in CRP No.2660 of 2024 dated 2660 of 2024. The said aspects were not considered by the Executing Court while issuing impugned salary attachment orders.

9. It is relevant to note that Section - 36 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 deals with ‘enforcement of award’ and the same is relevant for the purpose of considering the lis in the present revisions and it is extracted below:

“Section 36:-Enforcement. —Where the time for making an application to set aside the arbitral Award under section 34 has expired, or such application having been made, it has been refused, the award shall be enforced under th