Telangana High Court
Baddula Bhaskar Rao vs M/S. Shriram Chits Pvt. Ltd on 20 August, 2025
HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE RENUKA YARA
Civil Revision Petition No.290 of 2025
ORDER:
This revision petition is filed by the petitioner/judgment
debtor No.4 aggrieved by the order passed by the learned
I Senior Civil Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad in E.P.No.214
of 2018 in AA/CF.No.76 of 2012, dated 02.12.2024.
2. Heard Mr. G. Allabakash, learned counsel for the
revision petitioner and Mr. K.S.Sai Pavan, learned counsel for
the respondent No.1.
3. The Execution Petition has been filed under Rule 141 (2)
of Civil Rules of Practice and Order 21, Rule 11 of Code of Civil
Procedure to issue warrant of attachment of salary against the
petitioner (Judgement Debtor No.4) herein while not proceeding
against respondent Nos.2 to 5 (Judgment Debtor Nos.1 to 3 and
5) only. Vide impugned docket order dated 02.12.2024, the
learned I Senior Civil Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad
ordered for issuance of salary attachment warrant against the
petitioner herein.
::2::
4. In grounds of revision, it is pleaded that the impugned
order is to attach the salary of the petitioner for an amount of
Rs.7,43,382/-. Said attachment order has been passed even
though respondent No.1/Decree holder did not file an
application for recovery of decreetal amount to the Registrar of
Chits for issuance of recovery certificate and realization of
decreetal amount. Only when such an application is filed, the
Registrar of Chits would issue certificate of recovery to
competent Court. Without considering this aspect, the salary
attachment warrant was ordered to be issued against the
petitioner contrary to Rule 52 of A.P (Telangana) Chit Fund
Rules, 2008. The respondent No.1 is claiming total amount of
Rs.22,30,146/- from the petitioner and respondent Nos.4 and 5
for an amount of Rs.7,43,382/- each. It is alleged that by
recovering such amount from the petitioner and respondent
Nos.4 and 5, in effect, the respondent No.1 is recovering three
times the amount due under the chit. It is also pleaded that the
amount has to be recovered from all the Judgment debtors i.e.
petitioner and respondent Nos.2, 4 and 5 instead of the
petitioner alone. As such, prayed that the impugned order be
set aside.
::3::
5. The learned counsel for the revision petitioner relied
upon the order of this Court in C.R.P.No.1659 of 2025, dated
02.05.2025 at paragraph No.12, wherein, reference is made to
the case of Madamanchi Anil Kumar v. Margadarshi Chit Fund
Pvt. Ltd. {C.R.P.No.2338 of 2018, decided on 05.11.2018} about
considering the principle laid down by the Division Bench in
Punyamurthula Venkata Viswa Sundara Rao v. Margadarsi Chit
Fund Pvt. Ltd. {2017 (3) ALT 82 (D.B.), wherein, it is held that
the liability of sureties is joint and several. Further, it is held
that the contention of the petitioner that Recovery Certificate
issued by the Deputy Registrar of Chits cannot be acted upon
as per Rule 55 of the Andhra Pradesh Chit Fund Rules, 2008
and the same has been negatived holding that Execution
Petition is maintainable. Further, the learned counsel for the
revision petitioner referred to the order of this Court in
C.R.P.No.2733 of 2022, wherein, it is held that the decree
holder can execute his decree against all the judgment debtors
in equal proportion.
6. Having regard to the rival contentions, it is seen that this
Court has already held in C.R.P.No.1659 of 2025 that a
::4::
Recovery Certificate issued by the Deputy Registrar of Chits can
be acted upon as per Rule 55 of the Andhra Pradesh Chit Fund
Rules, 2008 and that an Execution Petition is maintainable. It
is also a point to be noted that the Government has issued
G.O.Ms.No.260 Revenue (Registration-I), dated 11.10.2016
authorizing the Assistant Registrars and Deputy Registrars of
Chits in respective jurisdictions for the purpose of issuing
Recovery Certificates which forms basis for filing Execution
Petitions before the competent civil courts. Lastly, as per
Section 128 of the Indian Contract Act, 1872, in a loan
transaction, the liability of sureties or guarantors when joint
and several, the decree holder can proceed against any one or
some or all the sureties/guarantors.
7. In the instant case, respondent No.1's contention is that
respondent Nos.2, 4 and 5 are not in service and therefore,
salary attachment cannot be sought. It is only the petitioner
who is still in service against whom attachment of salary can be
sought and therefore, such a relief was sought in the E.P and it
is also granted. Since liability of sureties or guarantors is joint
and several, respondent No.1/Decree holder is at liberty to
::5::
choose to proceed against one or few or all the judgment
debtors i.e. respondent Nos.2, 4 and 5 and the petitioner
herein.
8. In view of the foregoing discussion, this Court does not
see any infirmity in the impugned order passed by the learned I
Senior Civil Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad in E.P.No.214 of
2018 in AA/CF.No.76 of 2012, dated 02.12.2024 and therefore,
the revision petition is liable to be dismissed.
9. In the result, the Civil Revision Petition is dismissed. No
costs.
As a sequel, the miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending
in this Civil Revision Petition shall stand closed.
___________________
RENUKA YARA, J
Date:20.08.2025
gvl
