Sri G. Thimma Reddy vs M/S Dhanwan Chit Fund Pvt., Ltd
2022 Latest Caselaw 391 Tel

            HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE N. TUKARAMJI

                 CIVIL REVISION PETITION No. 652 of 2020



ORDER :

Challenging the propriety of the warrant of salary attachment, dated

16.11.2019 in E.P.No.852 of 2019 on the file of the XXI Junior Civil Judge,

City Civil Court, Hyderabad, the 1st and 2nd judgment-debtors filed this

revision.

2. The brief facts of the case are that the first revision petitioner has

subscribed a chit group of the Chit of the Disputant Company for a value of

Rs.5 lakhs. The first respondent/first revision petitioner as successful bidder

had received the prize amount and the second revision petitioner and two

others stood as sureties by submitting all necessary documents. Thereafter,

as the first respondent committed default, the Disputant Company

approached the Registrar of Chits for recovery of the amount in Arbitration

C.F.No.497 of 2018 and the same was allowed vide order dated 31.12.2018

holding that the Disputant Company is entitled to recover Rs.4,74,875/- with

interest at 18% per annum on principal amount of Rs.4,12,500/- from the

date of application and issued recovery certificate. Basing on the same, the

Disputant Company as decree-holder approached the Junior Civil Judge,

City Civil Court, Hyderabad, sought for attachment of salary under Order 21

Rule 48 C.P.C. and the Court had issued warrant of attachment. Aggrieved

thereby, the judgment-debtors filed this revision petition.

3. In the revision, the petitioners contested that the Registrar of Chits

passed the order against the settled principles of law and even without notice

to them. The executing Court failed to observe that they are not State or

Central Government employees but non-government employees and filing of

execution petition and issuance of impugned warrant without notice to the

revision petitioners is bad in law. The Court should have considered the

decree-holder's attitude in filing the petition for wrongful gain. Further the

judgment-debtors are the bread winners of the family and they have to spend

huge amounts towards medical treatment. Thus, the salary attachment shall

be withheld and permit them to file counter in the interest of justice.

4. In counter, the first respondent/DHr/Disputant Company pleaded that

the revision petitioners are not disputing the subscription of chit and default

by the first revision petitioner. Thereafter, the disputed company had taken

up the legal proceedings as per law and the Registrar of Chits had conducted

the arbitration proceedings as prescribed in law and though proper notice is

served, the revision petitioners failed to appear to contest the proceedings.

However, on merits, the Registrar of Chits had passed the orders.

Thereafter, for realization of the decretal dues, they have approached the

competent civil Court and the Court in execution proceedings rightly issued

attachment warrant. Thus, there is no impropriety in any of the proceedings

and the revision is devoid of any merit.

5. Heard Mrs P.Nitya, learned counsel for the petitioners and Sri

V.S.R.M.V.Prasad Sanaka, learned counsel for the respondent No.1 and

perused the record.

6. In these rival claims, the point arises for determination is: whether the

impugned attachment warrant of the executing Court is sustainable under

law?

7. The undisputed facts reveal that the first revision petitioner is the

subscriber of the Chits of the Disputant Company of the first respondent and

there was default in payment of subscriptions.

8. The Chit Funds Act, 1982 (for short 'the Act') is self contained

statute. The Section 64 of the Act contemplates that any dispute touching

defaulting subscriber shall be referred to the Registrar for Arbitration and no

civil Court shall have jurisdiction to entertain any suit or other proceedings

in respect of such dispute. On receipt of the dispute, as per Section 66 of the

Act the Registrar of Chits or any other person appointed by him is

empowered to settle the dispute by following the procedure under Section 67

of the Act. The Section 69 of the Act specifies that reasonable opportunity

to the parties shall be given while deciding the dispute by the Registrar of

Chits. The decision of the Registrar of Chits subject to appeal under Section

70 of the Act would be final. Section 70 of the Act prescribes that the

aggrieved party against the order under Section 69 of the Act may within

two months from the date of order, prefer appeal to the State Government.

The execution of the Award is dealt under Section 71 of the Act. The sub-

section (a) of Section 71 of the Act clarifies that the certificate issued by the

Registrar is deemed to be decree of civil Court and shall be executed in the

same manner as the decree of such Court.

9. In light of the above legal position, the contentions of the revision

petitioners that the notice was not served during the arbitration proceedings

and the accounts were not properly considered and the disputant company

pre-closed the subscription much earlier than the schedule might be ground

for the appeal questioning the propriety of the order, but are not the aspects

to be examined by the executing Court, as these aspects are beyond the

decree and not indicating any patent illegality. However, in the order of

arbitration, it is categorically mentioned that the notice sent to the opposite

party was returned, thereafter notice by publication was issued, but the

respondents (revision petitioners) did not turn up.

10. Be that as it may, it is not the case of the revision petitioners that the

executing Court had committed any other procedural irregularity, except the

contention that no notice is served before issuing the attachment warrant.

By the dates of order and the impugned warrant it is cleat that the execution

petition is filed within two years. Order XXI Rule 22 of CPC mandates a

notice to show cause to the jurisdiction before issuance of attachment where

more than two years are elapsed between the date of decree and the

application for execution. In effect, if the application is made within two

years from the date of decree against the party against whom executionis

applied for, no notice is necessary. In absence of any requirement of

issuance of notice, the executing court, on the application of the decree

holder proceeding with the attachment warrant is perfectly justified.

11. The other contention is that the Rule 48 of Order XXI CPC refers to

the government employees but they are only private employees, as such, the

execution proceedings cannot be continued against them is also not

acceptable as the revision petitioners failed to specify any legal position to

hold that quoting of wrong provision of law would disentitle the petitioner

for any relief or would make the execution proceedings invalid or vitiated. It

is also well settled that mere mentioning of wrong provision does not vitiate

the proceedings. Order XXI Rule 48(A) prescribes similar provision for

attachment of salary of private employees, which copes with the situation on

hand. Thus, this ground is falling short to draw any aspect in favour of the

revision petitioners.

12. For the aforesaid, I am of the opinion that the grounds urged by the

revision petitioners questioning the impugned attachment warrant are not

sustainable in law, consequently, the revision petition fails on merit and

thereby dismissed.

13. In the result, the civil revision petition is dismissed. There shall be no

order as to costs.

As a sequel, miscellaneous petitions pending if any in this Civil

Revision Petition, shall stand closed.

_________________ N. TUKARAMJI, J

Date: 02.02.2022 ccm