SRIRARNULA SURESH Vs. SRI VIJAY CHIT FUNDS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard Sri Vadlakonda Ravi Kumar Reddy, learned counsel for the petitioner, Sri G.Vasantharayudu, learned counsel for the respondent No.1 and respondent Nos.2 to 7 are not necessary parties

(2.) 1st respondent has filed an application under Sec. 64 of the Chit Fund Act, 1992 against the petitioner, respondents herein for recovery of an amount of Rs.12,33,000.00. Learned Deputy Registrar of Chits, Karimnagar, passed an Award in ARC No.467/2020, dtd. 23/3/2021 holding that the petitioner, respondents 2 to 7 are jointly and severally liable to pay an amount of Rs.12,33,000.00 with interest at 18% p.a. on the principal amount of Rs.11,00,000.00 from the date of filing of dispute till realization of the said amount. The said decretal amount is not paid. Therefore, 1st respondent has filed E.P.No.186 of 2021 in ARC.No.467 of 2020 to realize the said amount from respondent Nos. 2 to 6 including the petitioner herein. Learned Executing Court vide impugned attachment order dtd. 8/10/2021 ordered for recovery of an amount of Rs.14,43,574.00 each.

(3.) As discussed supra, vide aforesaid Award dtd. 23/3/2021, learned Deputy Registrar of Chits, Karimnagar, held that both the petitioner and other J.Drs. are jointly and severally liable to pay decretal amount. 1st respondent has filed the aforesaid Execution Petition for recovery of decretal amount from J.Drs. 2 to 6 including the petitioner herein. Therefore, the J.Drs. 2 to 6 including the petitioner herein have to pay the said amount proportionately. Executing Court cannot issue attachment order for realization of entire decretal amount each from the petitioner and other J.Drs. They can recover the said amount proportionately from all the J.Drs. including the petitioner herein. Without considering the said aspects, the Executing Court has issued impugned attachment order to the Disbursement Officer of the petitioner to withheld Rs.14,49,574.00 from the salary of the petitioner herein and remit the same to the credit of the aforesaid E.P. Similar attachment orders were issued to the other J.Drs. The petitioner has filed copies of the same. Therefore, the impugned attachment order is contrary to the provisions of the CPC, more particularly, Order XXI and provisions of Contract Act and also principles laid down by this Court in CRP No.1552 of 2024, dtd. 12/7/2024.