APHC010576312024 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3299] FRIDAY ,THE TWENTY FIRST DAY OF MARCH TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE RAVI NATH TILHARI CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO: 243/2025 Between: Chillara Srinivasa Rao and Others ...PETITIONER(S) AND Vajrakura Chit Funds Pvt Ltd and Others ...RESPONDENT(S) Counsel for the Petitioner(S): 1. VENKATA DURGA RAO ANANTHA Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. The Court made the following: ORDER: Heard Sri Venkata Suneel Reddy, learned counsel representing Sri A.Venkata Durga Rao, learned counsel for the petitioners. 2. The petitioners are the 1st, 2nd and 4th judgment debtors. The 1st respondent is THE decree holder. The 2nd respondent is the 3rd judgment debtor and the 3rd respondent is the 5th judgment debtor(wrongly typed as 4th judgment debtor). The respondents 4 and 5 are the garnishees. 2 3. The 1st respondent filed Arbitration Claim Petition No.379 of 2018, in which the award was passed under Section 69 of the Chit Fund Act, 1982, on 27.09.2019, as under: “ In exercise of powers conferred under section 69 of the Chit Fund Act, 1982, I do hereby order that the disputant is entitled to recover of Rs. 4,13,000/- (Rupees four lakhs thirteen thousand only) jointly and severally from the opponents 1 to 5 together with interest at the rate of 12% per annum on principle amount of Rs.3,75,000/- from the date of filing of the claim petition i.e. 03-11-2018 to till the date of realization and also. Rs. 17,157/- towards cost of this dispute. The amounts paid if any after filing of the dispute shall be given credit to.” 4. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that against the said award, the petitioners have filed the appeal, which is pending before the appellate authority without any interim order or stay. The decree holder/1st respondent filed E.P.No.247 of 2024 to execute the award, as decree of the Court, in which the order was passed by the learned Court for attachment and to recover the amount from the salary, fixing the instalments. He submits that the recovery has started. The grievance raised is that against all the three petitioners/judgment debtors, the warrant has been issued for recovery of the entire E.P. amount from each of them. He submits that thus, the recovery sought to be made is three times the E.P amount. 5. I have considered the above submission but find no merit in the submission. 6. The liability of the judgment debtors is joint and several as per the award to be executed as decree of the Court . So, the warrant for 3 recovery has been issued against the petitioners, separately, for the entire E.P amount. The warrant has been issued as per the award, but the actual recovery would not be three times of the E.P. amount. Since the liability is joint and several, the entire amount has been shown in the warrants issued to each petitioner. 7. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that in execution of the warrants issued the entire E.P. amount will be recovered, from all the three petitioners, individually. 8. The aforesaid submission is misconceived. The total E.P. amount shall be recovered from the judgment debtors jointly and severally. 9. The Executing Court shall see that the E.P. amount is recovered, pursuant to the warrants issued, and not beyond what is legally required to be recovered in terms of the decree. 10. With the aforesaid observations, the Civil Revision Petition is finally disposed of. No order as to costs. 11. As a sequel thereto, interlocutory applications, if any pending, shall also stand closed. _____________________ RAVI NATH TILHARI, J 4 Date: 21.03.2025 Pab 5 THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE RAVI NATH TILHARI CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.243 of 2025 Date:- 21.03.2025 Pab