Telangana High Court
Munigala Jalapathi vs M/S Kapil Chit Fund P Limited on 27 June, 2025
Author: K. Lakshman
Bench: K. Lakshman
THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K. LAKSHMAN
CIVIL REVISION PETITION No. 1622 of 2025
ORDER:
Heard Sri R. Lakshmi Narsimha Rao, learned counsel
for petitioner and Sri K.P. Vijay Kumar, learned counsel
appearing for respondent No.1, Chit Fund Company.
2. Respondent Nos.2 to 12 are not necessary parties.
3. Respondent No.1, Chit Fund Company, filed a suit in
O.S.No.167 and 2011, against petitioner and respondent Nos.2
to 12 seeking recovery of an amount of Rs.4,44,980/- along
with interest @12% per annum. Vide judgment and decree
dated 30.10.2013, the said suit was decreed ex parte. On the
strength of the said decree, respondent No.1, Chit Fund
Company, has filed Execution Petition vide E.P.No.6 of 2019,
before the learned Senior Civil Judge, Karimnagar, who in
turn, passed the undated order closing the said E.P.
Challenging the same, petitioner/Judgment Debtor No.3 filed
the present Civil Revision Petition.
2 KL, J
4. Sri R. Lakshmi Narsimha Rao, learned counsel for the
petitioner, would contend that the Chit Funds Act, 1982 (for
short 'the Act, 1982'), came into force on 15.09.2008 itself.
Therefore, after 15.09.2008, respondent No.1, Chit Fund
Company, cannot file a suit before the civil Court and it has to
file an application before the Registrar, in terms of Section 64
of the Act, 1982. Instead, respondent No.1, Chit Fund
Company, filed O.S.No.167 of 2011 before the learned
Principal Senior Civil Judge, Karimnagar, on 30.06.2011.
Therefore, the said suit, O.S.No.167 of 2011 is not
maintainable. Without considering the said aspects, the learned
trial Court decreed the said suit vide judgment and decree
dated 30.10.2013.
5. He would further contend that even an ex parte order
should be passed on merits and the learned trial Court decreed
the said suit stating that the suit claim is proved and the suit is
decreed with costs as prayed for charging interest @12% per
annum on the principal amount from the date of suit till its
realization. It is not a reasoned order. Respondent No.1, Chit
Fund Company, represented by its Recovery Officer,
3 KL, J
Sri N. Shiva Krishna, filed the aforesaid suit without any
authorization from respondent No.1. Without considering the
said aspects, the learned trial Court decreed the said suit.
6. He would further contend that as per the Memorandum
of Association and Articles of Association of respondent No.1,
Chit Fund Company, there is no need of furnishing 12 sureties.
The entire amount was credited to the account of
M/s. Kapil Chit Funds (Kakatiya) Private Limited, whereas,
the decree holder is M/s. Kapil Chit Funds Private Limited,
Karimnagar Branch. On the said grounds, he sought to set
aside the undated order under revision passed by the learned
trial Court in E.P.No.6 of 2019 in O.S.No.167 of 2011.
7. Learned counsel for respondent No.1, Chit Fund
Company, would contend that there is no error in the undated
order under revision.
8. As discussed supra, petitioner being Judgment Debtor
No.3 can resist the Execution Petition raising all the grounds
and contentions which he has raised in the present Civil
Revision Petition. As rightly contended by the learned counsel
4 KL, J
for the petitioner, even an ex parte judgment should be on
merits. Perusal of judgment dated 30.10.2013 in O.S.No.167
of 2011 passed by the learned Senior Civil Judge, Karimnagar,
would reveal that the learned trial Court decreed the said suit
stating that the suit claim is proved, the suit is decreed with
costs as prayed for, with interest @12% per annum on the
principal amount from the date of suit till its realization.
However, the learned trial Court did not assign any reason.
There is no consideration of Exs.A.1 to A.18. But, there is
challenge to the said ex parte judgment and decree. As rightly
contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner, the Act,
1982, came into force with effect from 15.09.2008.
Admittedly, the present suit was filed by respondent No.1,
Chit Fund Company, on 30.06.2011. In fact, respondent No.1
has to file an application in terms of Section 64 of the Act,
1982, before the Chit Arbitrator/Deputy Registrar of Chits.
Instead of doing so, petitioner filed the aforesaid suit before
the civil Court.
9. In the order under revision, there is no date and the
Executing Court passed the order under revision closing the
5 KL, J
said E.P. Therefore, it is not a reasoned order. However, the
petitioner/Judgment Debtor No.3 has to raise all the
contentions before the learned Executing Court. He has not
even entered appearance in E.P. Therefore,
petitioner/Judgment Debtor No.3 has to enter appearance in
E.P.No.6 of 2019 and raise all the grounds and contentions,
which he has raised in the present Civil Revision Petition,
before the learned Executing Court and it is for the Executing
Court to consider the same.
10. In the light of the above, the undated order under
revision passed by the learned Principal Senior Civil Judge,
Karimnagar, in E.P.No.6 of 2019 in O.S.No.167 of 2011 is set
aside. The matter is remanded back to the learned Executing
Court with a direction to decide E.P.No.6 of 2019 afresh.
Liberty is granted to the petitioner to take all the aforesaid
contentions before the learned Executing Court in the said E.P.
by filing counter. Thereafter, it is for the trial Court to consider
and decide the same.
6 KL, J
11. Accordingly, this Civil Revision Petition is allowed.
There shall be no order as to costs.
Miscellaneous applications, if any pending, shall stand
closed.
_________________
K. LAKSHMAN, J
27th JUNE, 2025.
Note: issue c.c. by 01.07.2025.
kvni
