BANDI VENKATESWARA RAO Vs. SRIRAM CHITS LTD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS C. R. P. was admitted on 19-1-2007 and in C. R. P. M. P. No. 180/2007 while granting interim stay, notice had been ordered.

(2.) JUDGMENT -debtors 4, 6 and 7 in E. P. No. 364/2005 in O. S. No. 823/2002 on the file of Principal Junior Civil Judge, Machilipatnam are the Revision Petitioners. The said Judgment-debtors as petitioners filed E. A. No. 1857/2005 in E. P. No. 364/2005 in O. S. No. 823/2002 aforesaid under Sections 47 and 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure (hereinafter in short referred to as "the Code" for the purpose of convenience) praying for an order that the Decree cannot be executed against the said petitioners-Judgment-debtors and the 5th Judgment-debtor as well. The 5th Judgment - debtor is the 5th respondent in the said E. A. and also 5th respondent in the present C. R. P. The learned Principal Junior Civil Judge, Machilipatnam after hearing the parties and after recording the respective stands taken by the parties, referred to the different provisions of the Indian Contract Act, relied on several decisions, and ultimately came to the conclusion that when a Decree had been made, no distinction can be drawn in between the Principal Debtor and the Sureties and all the Judgment-debtors are jointly and severally liable to pay the decretal amount and accordingly, dismissed the said application without costs. Aggrieved by the same, the present C. R. P. had been preferred.

(3.) PER contra, Sri K. Maheshwara Rao, the learned Counsel representing the respondent-Decree Holder-plaintiff also had taken this Court through the relevant findings recorded in O. S. No. 823/2002 and would maintain that the only reason on which the suit was dismissed as against the legal heirs of the principal debtor-D. 1 to D. 3 was that no assets of the deceased principal debtor had been left with in the hands of those parties and nothing beyond thereto and that cannot be taken advantage of by the other parties on the ground that they are just guarantors or sureties and further those parties cannot be permitted to contend that it is to be taken that they are also discharged from the liability on the ground that their liability is only coextensive with that of the principal debtor. The said parties - the Revision Petitioners cannot be permitted to raise that ground in the light of the findings recorded by the learned Principal Junior Civil Judge, Machilipatnam. The said findings had attained finality since those findings recorded in the suit had not been challenged by way of appeal and at the stage of execution, the self-same ground, by way of objections, cannot be taken by invoking Section 47 read with Section 151 of the Code. The learned Counsel also made certain submissions relating to the nature of Chit Fund transaction and also how the public suffers even in a case of this nature. Incidentally, the learned Counsel explained the duties of the Foreman and would maintain that in the facts and circumstances of the case and also in the light of the convincing reasons recorded by the learned Principal Junior Civil Judge, Machilipatnam, the Civil Revision Petition to be dismissed. The Counsel also placed strong reliance on several decisions to substantiate his submissions.