Research › Search › Judgment

Telangana High Court · body

2025 DIGILAW 410 (TS)

Pulluri Srinivas v. Kapil Chits Kakatiya Pvt Ltd.

2025-04-24

K.LAKSHMAN

body2025
ORDER : (K. LAKSHMAN, J.) Heard Sri K. Buchi Babu, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri K. P. Vijay Kumar, learned counsel for the respondent. Perused the record. 2. This Civil Revision Petition is filed under Section 115 of C.P.C, challenging the order, dated 28.08.2024 in E.P.No.25 of 2020, passed by the leaned Principal Junior Civil Judge-cum-Judicial Magistrate of First Class at Huzurabad. 3. Petitioner is the subscriber of the Chit with respondent No.1. J.D.R.Nos.2 to 4 are the guarantors to the said Chit Funds. Respondent No.1 has filed an application under Section 64 of the Chit Funds Act, 1982 (for short ‘the Act, 1982’) vide ARB.No.635 of 2014 before the Chit Arbitrator/ Deputy Registrar of Chits, Karimnagar, claiming an amount of Rs.3,67,352/- along with interest @ Rs.18% per annum on the principal amount of Rs.3,17,391/- from the date of filing of dispute till the date of realization of said amount and cost of suit against the petitioner and guarantors. Learned Deputy Registrar of Chits/ Chit Arbitrator has passed an award, dated 27.06.2015 holding that the petitioner and guarantors are jointly and severally liable to pay the said amount to the decree holder. 4. Thereafter, respondent No.1 has filed an execution petition vide E.P.No.25 of 2020 under Order XXI Rule 48 of C.P.C for execution of the said award. Vide order, dated 24.08.2024, the Executing Court allowed the said execution petition and issued salary attachment warrant against J.D.R.Nos.1 to 5 on payment of process. Challenging the said order, petitioner filed the present Civil Revision Petition. 5. Sri K. Buchi Babu, learned counsel for the petitioner would contend that the execution petition filed by respondent No.1 vide E.P.No.25 of 2020 barred by limitation. He placed reliance on Section 71 of the Chit Funds Act, 1982 (for short ‘the Act, 1982’). Without considering the same, learned Executing Court entertained the said Execution Petition and passed the impugned order, dated 28.8.2024. 6. Whereas, Sri K. P.Vijay Kumar, learned counsel for respondent No.1 would contend that respondent No.1 has filed the aforesaid Execution Petition in terms of Section 71(a) of the Act, 1982 and therefore, the same is proper. He would further contend that neither the petitioner nor other J.Drs challenged the Award, dated 27.06.2015 of the Deputy Registrar of Chits/ Chit Arbitrator at Karimnagar. He would further contend that neither the petitioner nor other J.Drs challenged the Award, dated 27.06.2015 of the Deputy Registrar of Chits/ Chit Arbitrator at Karimnagar. On consideration of the said aspects only, the learned Execution Court has passed the impugned order, dated 28.08.2024 in E.P.No.25 of 2020. There is no error in it. 7. As discussed supra, respondent has filed an application under Section 64 of the Act, 1982 before the Deputy Registrar of Chits/ Chit Arbitrator for recovery of the aforesaid amount. Learned Deputy Registrar of Chits/ Chit Arbitrator has passed an award, dated 27.06.2015. 8. Perusal of record would reveal that on the application dated 22.01.2020 submitted by respondent No.1, learned Deputy Registrar of Chits/ Chit Arbitrator at Karimnagar has forwarded the Certificate, dated 23.01.2020 to the learned Principal Junior Civil Judge, Huzurabad/Executing Court. 9. Thus, respondent No.1 being the decree holder has submitted an application, dated 22.01.2020 to the Deputy Registrar of Chits/ Chit Arbitrator at Karimnagar with a request to furnish the certificate issued under Section 71(a) of the Act to the Executing Court. 10. Respondent has filed Execution Petition under Order XXI Rule 12 and 13 of the C.P.C vide E.P.No.25 of 2020 before the Executing Court on 04.02.2020. 11. In the light of the submissions made by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the subject Execution Petition is barred by limitation in terms of Section 71(b) of the Act, 1982, it is relevant to extract Section - 71 of the Chit Funds Act, 1982: “ 71. Money how recovered .—Every order passed by the Registrar or the nominee under section 68 or section 69 and every order passed by the State Government in appeal under section 70 for payment of any money shall, if not carried out,— (a) on a certificate issued by the Registrar, be deemed to be a decree of a Civil Court, and shall be executed in the same manner as a decree of such Court, or (b) be executed in accordance with the provisions of any law for the time being in force for the recovery of amounts as arrears of land revenue: Provided that no application for execution under clause (b) shall be made after the expiry of three years from the date fixed in the order, and if no such date is fixed, from the date of the order.” 12. As discussed supra, respondent has filed the Execution Petition basing on the certificate issued by the Registrar and as per the Section 71(a) of the Act, 1982, the said certificate is deemed to be a decree of civil Court and shall be executed, in the same manner as decree of civil Court. Thus, respondent/decree holder filed the said Execution Petition in terms of Section 71(a) of the Act, 1982. 13. Section 71(b) of the Act, 1982 deals with the Execution Petition for recovery of amount arrears of land Revenue. Limitation for the same is three (3) years. But, in the present case, respondent has initiated Execution Proceedings for Recovery of amount awarded by the Deputy Registrar of Chits/ Chit Arbitrator at Karimnagar in terms of Section 71(a) of the Act, 1982. It is not for recovery of land arrears. Therefore, the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner that the subject Execution Petition is barred by the limitation in terms of Section 71(b) of the Act, 1982 cannot be accepted and it is un-sustainable. 14. Petitioner herein has filed counter in E.P.No.25 of 2020. It is also relevant to note that the petitioner herein/J.Dr.No.1 did not take any steps to challenge the order, dated 27.06.2024 in ARB.No.635 of 2014. Even then, in the counter filed by the petitioner herein in E.P.No.25 of 2020, he has contended that the said award was an ex-parte award. He has not filed written statement before the Deputy Registrar of Chits/ Chit Arbitrator at Karimnagar. If the Petitioner is aggrieved by the said award, dated 27.06.2015 in ARB.No.635 of 2014, he has to take steps to challenge the same. On the said ground, he cannot resist the Execution Petition. 15. In the light of the said discussion, this Court is of the considered view that on consideration of the said facts, learned Executing Court passed the impugned order, dated 28.08.2024 in E.P.No.25 of 2020. It is a reasoned order and well founded. There is no error, much less jurisdictional error in the said order. Petitioner herein failed to make out any case to interfere with the said order and the Civil Revision Petition is liable to be dismissed and accordingly, it is dismissed. No costs. As a sequel, the miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending in this Civil Revision Petition shall stand closed.