ORDER:

1. This revision petition has been filed under Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, (for short ‘C.P.C.’) assailing the order of attachment under Order XXI Rule 48 of C.P.C., dated 29.06.2024 passed by the Principal Junior Civil Judge, Jagtial.

2. Heard Sri K.Jagadeshwar Reddy, learned counsel representing Sri C.Sri Hari Prasad, learned counsel for the petitioners and Sri N.Amarnath, learned counsel for the respondent No.1.

3. The petitioners are judgment debtor Nos.2 and 3 in the award dated 05.08.2023 in Arbitration No.46 of 2022, passed by the Chit Arbitrator/Deputy Registrar of Chits at Karimnagar, whereby, the principal borrower and the sureties/revision petitioners were jointly and severally held liable to pay an amount of Rs.5,04,770/- with interest at 18% per annum on the principal amount of Rs.4,26,924/- from the date of award till the date of realization.

4. The revision petitioners/judgment debtors assailed the impugned attachment order on following grounds:

1. The Deputy Registrar has not been invested with the power to pass award under the Chit Fund Act, 1982 (for short ‘the Act, 1982’), thus, the award was passed without jurisdiction.

2. As per Section 71 of the Act, 1982 coupled with Rule 55 of Chit Fund Rules, for execution of the award, the competent authority shall forward the decree to the competent Court for execution, which is conspicuously absent in the present case.

3. The executing Court ought to have issued the attachment award only to the extent of the liability as all of the co-sureties would be equally liable to contribute as per Section 146 of the Indian Contract Act, 1872.

5. Learned counsel for the revision petitioners contends that the executing Court without considering the above mentioned aspects and the settled position in Punyamurthula Venkata Vishwa Sundara Rao v. Margadarsi Chit Fund Pvt.Ltd., Hyderabad¹ issued the attachment warrant. In the absence of foundation, the proceedings of the Deputy Registrar including the award shall stand void, as such, the revision petition is liable to be allowed and the impugned attachment award shall be set-aside.

6.a. Per contra, learned counsel for respondent No.1/decree holder would submit that Section 2(o) of the Act, 1982 defines the ‘Registrar’, who includes the Deputy Registrar and the powers of the Registrar are conferred by the Government on the Deputy Registrar under notification vide G.O.Ms.No.260, Revenue (Registrar-I), 11^th October, 2016. Thus, the Deputy Registrar, in their respective Registration District is competent to entertain arbitration petitions and pass appropriate orders.

6.b. Further, as per Rule 55 of the Chit Fund Rules, the respondent No.1 had approached the Deputy Registrar vide Letter dated 22.11.2023, seeking issuance of recovery certificate and to forward the same to the Principal Junior Civil Judge, Jagtial, for execution. The Deputy Registrar vide Letter dated 06.01.2024 forwarded the recovery certificate, which was issued under Section 71(a) of the Act, 1982, in Arbitration No.46 of 2022 for recovery through the Principal Junior Civil Judge at Jagtial. Therefore, the requirement under Section 71 of the Act and Rule 55 of the Chit Fund Rules has been properly complied.

1 2017 (3) ALD 387

6.c. He further pleaded that as the per the Contract, the principal borrower and the sureties are jointly and severally liable to pay the entire due and this position is supported by the statutory position under Section 128 of the Contract Act, 1872.

7. Learned counsel for the respondent No.1 placed reliance on the authority passed by the Division Bench of this Court between “Madamanchi Anil Kumar v. Margadarshi Chit Fund Pvt. Limited”2 in C.R.P. No.2338 of 2018 dated 05.11.2018 and pleaded that the legal position has been settled by distinguishing the Judgment in Punyamurthula Venkata Vishwa Sundara Rao (cited supra) and held that the contention as to the competency of the Deputy Registrar in passing the Award under the Act, 1982 a