Telangana High Court
Adupa Laxminarayana vs M/S. Kanakadurga Chit Funds Nit. Ltd on 19 November, 2025
THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE NARSING RAO NANDIKONDA
CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO.6591 of 2018
ORDER:
This Civil Revision Petition is filed under Article 227 of
Constitution of India against the order passed by the learned
Principal Junior Civil Judge, Warangal in E.P.No.107 of 2017
(New No.379 of 2022) in Arbitration Case No.AA/CF/298/2016.
2. Heard Ms.Geetha, learned counsel for the revision
petitioners and Sri N.Amarnath, learned counsel for the
respondents. The parties herein shall be referred as Decree
Holder and Judgment Debtor as in Execution Petition.
3. Brief facts of the case are that respondent/decree holder
has filed an application before the Deputy Registrar of Chits,
Regional Office, Warangal. An Arbitration case was filed by the
decree holder seeking to resolve the dispute between the decree
holder and the judgment debtor in respect of the recovery of sum
of Rs.2,71,076/- including the interest and the costs.
Admittedly, the petitioner herein is the principal
borrower/subscriber with the respondent chit company and that
the 1st Judgment Debtor was successful bidder and he was paid
prize money and he also furnished security and the J.Dr Nos.2
to 5 stood as guarantors to the J.Dr.No.1 as the J.Dr No.1
committed default, as such the decree holders have filed an
application before the Deputy Registrar of the Chits and which
led to passing of award under section 69 of Chit Fund Act, 1982
for recovery of the said amounts from the petitioners/Judgment
Debtors herein.
4. The petitioners/Judgment Debtors herein has preferred an
appeal as provided under the Act before the Principal Secretary,
Revenue(Chit Appellate Authority),Telangana vide Appeal No.107
of 2017, against the said award, wherein the learned Principal
Secretary to the Government granted stay for three months or
disposal of the case, whichever is earlier, on 11.04.2017. It is
submitted that the said stay has not been extended further as of
now, there being no stay, the respondent/J.Dr have already filed
the present Execution Petition. In the said E.P., the learned
Judge allowed the petition and ordered issuance of movable
attachment warrants under Order XXI Rule 43 of CPC against
E.P. schedule movable properties belong to the J.Dr Nos.1 to 5.
The same is being assailed before this Court in the present
revision, contending that the learned Judge did not consider the
objections raised by the J.Dr's though they filed a counter on
30.01.2018, and without considering the contentions of the
J.Drs the executing Court has passed such order.
5. Admittedly, it is not in dispute that the J.Dr's filed a
counter before the executing Court on 30.01.2018, vide
S.R.No.360 of 2018. On perusal of the order of the
trial/executing Court, it is evident that though the record clearly
states and reflects that a counsel was also representing for the
Judgment Debtors, but contrary to the same the learned Judge
held that though notices served on J.Dr Nos. 1 to 5, they did not
choose to appear before the Court and hence they were set ex
parte. It is not in dispute that as on the date of the said order the
petitioners had already filed their counter and the same is part
of the record.
6. Though, the learned counsel for the respondents submits
that as there was no representation for the J.Dr's before the trial
Court, as such the learned Judge has rightly allowed the
Execution Petition and that the petitioners are making
averments to divert/delay the matter without making any
comments and averments over the decree awarded against them,
admittedly, the order passed by the learned Judge appears to be
without considering the counter filed by the petitioners and
without affording them an opportunity to make their
submissions. It thus appears that no proper opportunity was
provided to the J.Dr's to make their submissions and the order
not being on merits deserves to be set aside. Accordingly, the
revision deserves to be allowed.
7. In the result, the Civil Revision Petition is disposed of with
a direction, directing the executing Court to hear the matter
afresh, taking into consideration the counter filed by the J.Dr's
and by giving an opportunity to both parties to advance their
contentions, and thereafter proceed in accordance with law on
merits.
8. Further, it is directed to dispose the E.P. as expeditiously
as possible, as it pertains to the year 2017, and without granting
any unnecessary adjournments. If any party seeks adjournment,
the learned executing Court is at liberty to dispose of the matter
on the available records and on merits.
Miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending in this revision
petition shall stand closed.
________________________________________
JUSTICE NARSING RAO NANDIKONDA
Date: 19.11.2025
ADT
