GUGULOTH BABU RAO Vs. SURAKHSA CHIT FUNDS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This Civil Revision Petition is directed by the JDRs 1, 2 and 4 against the impugned docket order dated 18.01.2010 passed in E.P. No. 21 of 2010 in O.S. No. 216 of 2006 on the file of the Principal Senior Civil Judge, Kothagudem, Khammam District.

(2.) The first Respondent herein appears to have filed a suit in O.S. No. 216 of 2006 for recovery of money based on a chit transaction. The said suit was decreed on 08.06.2009. The first JDr was a successful bidder. He agreed to forego Rs. 80,000/- out of Rs. 2,00,000/-. According to him, he was paid total prize amount of Rs. 1,20,000/- in three cheques and two adjustment vouchers. It is the case of the DHR that JDR No. 1/first Petitioner herein committed default in payment of 29 instalments of Rs.5,000/- each and basing on the same he filed the suit. The Defendants 2 to 4 stood as sureties. It is the case of the JDR No. 1/first Petitioner herein that the first Respondent/Plaintiff obtained signatures on blank promissory note and guarantee bond etc. It is also the case of the JDR No. 1/first Petitioner herein that though three cheques bearing Nos. 0826551, 313229 and 313240 for Rs. 50,000/-, Rs. 26,000/- and Rs. 35,000/- respectively were issued which are drawn on State Bank of Hyderabad, Sudimalla Branch, but they are the self cheques issued by the first Respondent/Plaintiff and out of those three cheques the Plaintiff himself has encashed two cheques of Rs. 50,000/- and Rs. 35000/- and that the first Defendant was paid only Rs. 26,300/-. It is also his case that on 30.12.2008 he filed his chief affidavit along with a petition to issue summons to the Branch Manager, State Bank of Hyderabad, Sudimalla branch to produce the original account ledger statement of the Plaintiff firm with the bank to show whether cheque Nos. 0826551 and 313229 were withdrawn by him or not. The specific case of the JDR No. 1/first Petitioner is that since he could not appear before the lower Court on 27.04.2009 due to ill-health, costs of Rs. 1500/- was imposed and case was posted to 01.06.2009. It is also his case that on 01.06.2009 he could not arrange Rs. 1500/- and therefore he could not pay that amount and he requested time till 08.06.2009 but his request was not considered and his chief affidavit was eschewed and the case was posted for judgment to 08.06.2009. It is his case that on 06.06.2009 he filed an application, under Section 141 read with Section 151 Code of Civil Procedure, praying to set aside the order dated 01.06.2009 and to reopen the case. But, however, on 08.06.2009 the learned Judge pronounced the judgment and passed the decree, and the application filed by the first Petitioner herein was returned with a docket order stating that the order dated 01.06.2009 has not been complied with, hence returned.

(3.) Subsequently, the first Respondent filed EP No. 21 of 2010 and sought attachment of the wages of the Petitioners 1, 2 and 4 herein. The learned Judge, by impugned docket order, ordered to attach the wages of the Petitioners 1, 2 and 4, and the said order is under challenge in this revision.