ORDER : 1. This Civil Revision Petition is filed invoking the provisions of Article 227 of the Constitution of India, aggrieved by the orders passed by the Deputy Registrar of Chits/Arbitrator, Ranga Reddy District, in I.A.No.37 of 2025 in Dispute No.35 of 2025, dated 11.03.2025, issuing order of attachment of immovable property of the petitioner having House bearing No.10-20 constructed on Plot No.23 (Southern Side), admeasuring 141 Sq. Yards, situated at Chivvemla Mandal, Kudakuda Village and Gram Panchayat, Suryapet District. 2. Heard Mr. M.Arun Kumar, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. P.Durga Prasad, learned counsel for respondent No.1. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that respondent Nos.2 to 8 are proforma respondents and the petitioner is not seeking any relief and they are not the necessary parties. 4. With the consent of both the parties, this Civil Revision Petition is disposed of at the stage of admission. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that respondent No.1 filed a petition invoking the provisions of Sections 64 and 66(1) of the Chit Funds Act, 1982 (for short, “the Act”) before the Deputy Registrar of Chits/Arbitrator, Ranga Reddy District, against the petitioner and respondent Nos.2 to 8 for the recovery of Rs.18,34,143/-. Along with said dispute, respondent No.1 filed application I.A.No.37 of 2025 seeking the attachment of the scheduled property mentioned in the said petition. The Deputy Registrar of Chits/Arbitrator, Ranga Reddy District, without issuing notice as required under sub- Section 2 of Section 68 of the Act, straight away passed the impugned order and the same is contrary to the provisions of the Act. 6. He further submitted that the petitioner is a guarantor, and the principal borrower is a government teacher and is having movable and immovable properties. 7. Per contra, learned counsel for respondent No.1 submits that, as per the provisions of the Contract Act, the decree holder is entitled to file applications against the principal borrower or the guarantor, and the Court below rightly passed the impugned order. 8. Learned counsel for respondent No.1 further submitted that insofar as the contentions raised by learned counsel for the petitioner that the arbitrator without following the provisions of sub-section 2 of Section 68 passed the impugned order is concerned, the petitioner is entitled to file an application before the very same arbitrator for raising the attachment. 8. Learned counsel for respondent No.1 further submitted that insofar as the contentions raised by learned counsel for the petitioner that the arbitrator without following the provisions of sub-section 2 of Section 68 passed the impugned order is concerned, the petitioner is entitled to file an application before the very same arbitrator for raising the attachment. The petitioner without filing any such application straight away approached this Court and filed the present Civil Revision Petition and the same is not maintainable under the law. 9. Having considered the rival submissions made by the respective parties, and after perusal of the material available on record, it reveals that in the application filed by respondent No.1 in I.A.No.37 of 2025, the Deputy Registrar of Chits/Arbitrator, Ranga Reddy District, passed the attachment order against the petitioner even without issuing the notice as required under sub section 2 of Section 68 of the Act. 10. Taking into consideration the facts and circumstances of the case, the impugned order passed by the Deputy Registrar of Chits/Arbitrator, Ranga Reddy District is set aside and the Deputy Registrar of Chits/Arbitrator, Ranga Reddy District, is directed to pass appropriate orders in accordance with law in I.A.No.37 of 2025, as expeditiously as possible, preferably within a period of four (4) weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. 11. Accordingly, this Civil Revision Petition is disposed of. No order as to costs. Pending miscellaneous applications, if any, shall stand closed.