Telangana High Court
CRP/3357/2014 of Sri Sesha Sadanandam Vs M/s. Margadarsi Chit Fund (P) Ltd., on 31 December 2021
COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA FRIDAY, THE THIRTY FIRST DAY OF DECEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY ONE AT HYDERABAD PRESENT LREVIsroNP TIT o N THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE A.VENKATESHWARA REDDY o 2014 Petition under Sec.115 of CpC., aggrieved by the Order dated 04_08-20.14 inE'A'No 363 0f 2014 in
IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANAAT HYDERABAD
FRIDAY,THE THIRTY FIRST DAY OF DECEMBERTWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY ONEPRESENT
THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE A.VENKATESHWARA REDDY
LREVIsroNPTIT oNo2014
E'A'No 363 Petition under Sec.115 0f 2014 in E.p.No.76 of CpC., 0f aggrieved 2013 in o.s.No.1531 by the Order 12006 dated 04_08-20.14 fire of the rvinSenior Civil Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad.'nthe Between:
Sri Sesha Sadanandam, S/o. late Sri Sesha Balaiah Aged about 75 years, Occ:Pensioner R/o. H.No. 4-2-392193, Opp. Royal plaza Sultan Bazar, Hyderabad.
...PETITIONERYJUDGMENT DEBTOR NO.3
AND
M/s. Margadarsi Chit Fund (p) Ltd.,, Rep. by its princippt Officer and Generat ManagerSri A. Suryanarayana Raju Fateh Maidan Road, Nampally, Hyderabad_4Sri A. Suryanarayana Raju Fateh Maidan Road, Nampally, Hyderabad_4
, ..RESPONDENT/DECREE HOLDER
LA. NO: 1 OF 2014(C RPMP, NO: 4597 OF 2014)
Petition under section 15'1 cpc praying that in the circumstances stated in theaffidavit filed in support of the petition, the High court may be pleased to stay allfudher proceedings in E.P.No.z6 of 2013 in o.s.No.1531/2006 pending disposat ofthe above Revision Petition.
Counsel for the Petitioner: SRI G. DHANANJAI
Counsel forthe Respondent: SRI P. DURGA PRASAD
The Coud made the following: ORDER
IION'BLE [SRI ][JUSTICE A. ][VENKATESHWARA REDDY]CIVIL REVI[SION][ PETITI][ON ][NO.][ 3357 ][of][ 20L4]
Citations and Judicial Treatment
Cited by
0
Decisions in the index citing it
Cites
0
Decisions referred to
In this index
0
Of the decisions it cites
Overruled / Questioned
0
No negative treatment found
Loading the citing and cited decisions…
This judgment in the centre: on the left the decisions it cites, on the right the decisions citing it. Colour is the treatment; choose a decision to open it.
ORDER:
"fni" [Ci.rit Revision ][Petition ][is ][filed by the ][petitioner ][/]judgment debtor assailing [the ][orders ][in ][E'A'No'363 ][of ][2014 ][in]E.P.No.76 of [2013 ][in ][O.S.No.i531 ][of ][2006']
2. The respondent / [decree ][holder ][has ][filed ][O S'No'153 ][1 ][of]2006 against the [defendants ]/ [judgment ][debtors ][for ][recovery]of suit claim in respect of a [chit ][funds ][scheme ][and ][after]obtaining the deciee the plaintiff / [decree ][holder ][has ][filed]E.P.No.159 of 2008 against the [pJrrzed ]subscriber thedefendant No.1 for reafizafion of the decreetal amount. Butthe plaintiff / decree holder was not successful in realizingthe fruits of the decree. Finally, the decree holder wasconstrained not to press the E.P. against the judgment debtorNo. 1 and file present E.P.No.76 of 2O 13 against thepetitioner/ judgment debtor No.3.
3. The petitioner / judgment debtor No.3 has filedE.A.No.363 of 2014 for dismissal of the E.p. stating that thedecree holder cannot proceed against the petitioner Idefendant No.3 unless the remedy against the judgmentdebtor No.l is exhausted though the liability is joint and several. However, that application in E.A.No.363 of 2014 isdismissed by the Court below. Assailing the said orders, thepresent Civil Revision Petition is filed on the ground th.rt thedecree holder has not made other defendants as judgmentdebtors in E.P.No.76 of 2013 and only proceeded against thepetitioner / judgment debtor No.3, which is highly illegal andarbitrary.
4. It is [judgment ]debtor No.1, who is beneficiary of theprize money in the chit fund scheme and that withoutexhausting any remedy against judgment debtor No.1 thedecree holder cannot permitted to proceed against thepetitioner / judgment debtor No.3. Accordingly, relied uponthe principles laid down by this Court in Jaichand T. Gangwalv. Sriram Chit Fund (Koti Branch) and others reported in2013 (5) ALD 42s.
5. Heard on both sides. Perused the record. Therespondent / decree holder has obtained decree inO.S.No.1531 of 2006 against all the defendants for recoveryof prize money that was availed by the l"t defendant. As [per]the order impugned, it is made clear that initially the decreeholder has filed E.P.No.159 of 2008 against [judgment ][debtor]No.1 for realization of the decreetal amount but he [was not]successful in realizing the amount and that [he'{vas]
constrained not to press E.p.No.159 of 2OOg againstjudgment debtor No. 1. Later he has filed this E.p.No.76 of2013 against judgment debtor No.3.judgment debtor No. 1. Later he has filed this E.p.No.76 of2013 against judgment debtor No.3.
6. Learned counsel for the revision petitioner / judgmentdebtor No.3 seeks to submit that as per the principles laid inJaichand r. Gangwa|s case the decree holder is not entitledto proceed against the guarantors keeping aside the principaldebtors and other sureties, which would give scope forcollusion between decree holder on one hand and some of thejudgment debtors on the other.
7. The principles laid down by tHis Court in the abovejudgment are not applicable to the facts of the present casefor the simple reason that the decree holder has alreadyproceeded against judgment debtor No. 1 in E.p.No.159 of2008 as mentioned in paragraph No.g of the order impugnedand the decree holder was constrained not to pressE.P.No.159 of 2008 as they were unable to realize the fruits ofthe decree. Therea_fter the present E.p.No.76 of 2013 is filedagainst judgment debtor No.3.
8Therefore, I Iind no irregularity in the order impugned.Except alleging that the Court below has not proceededExcept alleging that the Court below has not proceededagainst judgment debtor No.1, who is prized subscriber no I
other ground is raised by the revision petitioner / judgmentdebtor No.3 and in view of the findings recorded by the Courtbelow in paragraph No.8 of the impugned order, the c-.ecreeholder has proceeded against judgment debtor No.1, who isprized subscriber, later that E.P.No. 159 of 2008 was notpressed and since the amount could not be realized, thepresent E.P.No.76 of 2013 is filed against [judgment ]debtorNo.3. In terms of the judgment and decree in O.S.No.1531 of2006 liability of all the defendants is [joint ]and several [and ]inview of the fact.that the decree holder has exhausted [the]remedy against the 1"t defendant / [jupgment ]debtor No.1 [the]principles iaid down in the above [judgment ]are not applicableto the facts of the present case. I find no irreguiarity [in ][the]order impugned and it does not warrant any [interference of]this Court.
9. In the result, the Civil Revision Petition is [dismissed]with costs.
if shall staldPending miscellaneous applications, any, closed.
SD/.T.JAYASREEIASSISTANT [REGISTRAR]AY''SECTION OFFICER
//TRUE COPY//
To,
I. The lV Senior [Civil ][Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad']2. One CC to [SRl. G DHANANJAI Advocate ][[OPUC]]O"" CC to SRl. [P ][DURGA PRASAD Advocate ][[OPUC]]
. Two CD [CoPies.]
. One Spare [CoPY]
TLTR
HIGH COURT
DATED:31/1212021
ORDERCRP.No.3357 ot 20141dE [J l^lt(:]d oz [FEB ][2022]c:D;q5 +1,..r cDISMISSING THE C.R.P. WITH COSTS.
Lbl