Dismissed

Sri Sesha Sadanandam v. M/s. Margadarsi Chit Fund (P) Ltd.

Telangana HC31 Dec 2021CRP/3357/2014

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court dismissed a civil revision petition filed by a judgment debtor challenging the initiation of execution proceedings only against him, despite joint liability with another debtor against whom execution had been attempted but failed. The court held that the principles barring such proceedings were not applicable as the principal debtor had been sued in the execution proceedings, thus n

What did the court decide?

Civil Revision Petition dismissed with costs.

Sri Sesha Sadanandam Vs M/s. Margadarsi Chit Fund… — Execution and Attachment | Telangana HC (2021)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA

¶2

AT HYDERABAD

¶3

FRIDAY,THE THIRTY FIRST DAY OF DECEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY ONE

¶4

PRESENT

¶5

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE A.VENKATESHWARA REDDY

¶6

LR EVIsroNP TIT o N o 2014

¶7

Petition under Sec.115 of CpC., aggrieved by the Order dated 04_08-20.14 in E'A'No 363 0f 2014 in E.p.No.76 0f 2013 in o.s.No.1531 12006 fire of the rv Senior Civil Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad. 'nthe

¶8

Between:

¶9

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.

¶10

...PETITIONERYJUDGMENT DEBTOR NO.3

¶11

AND

¶12

M/s. Margadarsi Chit Fund (p) Ltd.,, Rep. by its princippt Officer and Generat Manager Sri A. Suryanarayana Raju Fateh Maidan Road, Nampally, Hyderabad_4

¶13

,..RESPONDENT/DECREE HOLDER

¶14

LA. NO: 1 OF 2014(C RPMP, N O: 4597 OF 2014)

¶15

Petition under section 15'1 cpc praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High court may be pleased to stay all fudher proceedings in E.P.No.z6 of 2013 in o.s.No.1531/2006 pending disposat of the above Revision Petition.

¶16

Counsel for the Petitioner: SRI G. DHANANJAI

¶17

Counsel forthe Respondent: SRI P. DURGA PRASAD

¶18

The Coud made the following: ORDER

¶19

¶20

IION'BLE^{SRI JUSTICE A. VENKATESHWARA REDDY} CIVIL REVI^{SIONPETITION NO. 3357 of 20L4}

¶21

ORDER:

¶22

"fni"^{Ci.rit RevisionPetition is filed by the petitioner/} judgment debtor assailing^{the ordersin E'A'No'363of 2014 in} E.P.No.76 of^{2013 in O.S.No.i531 of 2006'}

¶23

The respondent /^{decree holder has filedO S'No'1531 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 the defendant No.1 for reafizafion of the decreetal amount. But the plaintiff / decree holder was not successful in realizing the fruits of the decree. Finally, the decree holder was constrained not to press the E.P. against the judgment debtor No. 1 and file present E.P.No.76 of 2O 13 against the petitioner/ judgment debtor No.3.

¶24

The petitioner / judgment debtor No.3 has filed E.A.No.363 of 2014 for dismissal of the E.p. stating that the decree holder cannot proceed against the petitioner I defendant No.3 unless the remedy against the judgment debtor No.l is exhausted though the liability is joint and

¶25

¶26

several. However, that application in E.A.No.363 of 2014 is dismissed by the Court below. Assailing the said orders, the present Civil Revision Petition is filed on the ground th.rt the decree holder has not made other defendants as judgment debtors in E.P.No.76 of 2013 and only proceeded against the petitioner / judgment debtor No.3, which is highly illegal and arbitrary.

¶27

It is^judgment debtor No.1, who is beneficiary of the prize money in the chit fund scheme and that without exhausting any remedy against judgment debtor No.1 the decree holder cannot permitted to proceed against the petitioner / judgment debtor No.3. Accordingly, relied upon the principles laid down by this Court in Jaichand T. Gangwal v. Sriram Chit Fund (Koti Branch) and others reported in 2013 (5) ALD 42s.

¶28

Heard on both sides. Perused the record. The respondent / decree holder has obtained decree in O.S.No.1531 of 2006 against all the defendants for recovery of prize money that was availed by the l"t defendant. As^per the order impugned, it is made clear that initially the decree holder has filed E.P.No.159 of 2008 against^{judgmentdebtor} No.1 for realization of the decreetal amount but he^{was not} successful in realizing the amount and that^he'{vas

1 I

constrained not to press E.p.No.159 of 2OOg against judgment debtor No. 1. Later he has filed this E.p.No.76 of 2013 against judgment debtor No.3.

¶33

Learned counsel for the revision petitioner / judgment debtor No.3 seeks to submit that as per the principles laid in Jaichand r. Gangwa|s case the decree holder is not entitled to proceed against the guarantors keeping aside the principal debtors and other sureties, which would give scope for collusion between decree holder on one hand and some of the judgment debtors on the other.

¶34

The principles laid down by tHis Court in the above judgment are not applicable to the facts of the present case for the simple reason that the decree holder has already proceeded against judgment debtor No. 1 in E.p.No.159 of 2008 as mentioned in paragraph No.g of the order impugned and the decree holder was constrained not to press E.P.No.159 of 2008 as they were unable to realize the fruits of the decree. Therea_fter the present E.p.No.76 of 2013 is filed against judgment debtor No.3.

¶35

8 Therefore, I Iind no irregularity in the order impugned. Except alleging that the Court below has not proceeded against judgment debtor No.1, who is prized subscriber no

¶36

¶37

other ground is raised by the revision petitioner / judgment debtor No.3 and in view of the findings recorded by the Court below in paragraph No.8 of the impugned order, the c-.ecree holder has proceeded against judgment debtor No.1, who is prized subscriber, later that E.P.No. 159 of 2008 was not pressed and since the amount could not be realized, the present E.P.No.76 of 2013 is filed against^judgment debtor No.3. In terms of the judgment and decree in O.S.No.1531 of 2006 liability of all the defendants is^joint and several^and in view 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 applicable to the facts of the present case. I find no irreguiarity^{in the} order impugned and it does not warrant any^{interference of} this Court.

¶38

In the result, the Civil Revision Petition is^dismissed with costs.

¶39

Pending miscellaneous applications, if any, shall stald

¶40

closed.

¶41

SD/.T.JAYASREE ASSISTANT^REGISTRAR AY'' //TRUE COPY//

SECTION OFFICER

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]} 4. Two CD^CoPies. 5. One Spare^CoPY TL TR

HIGH COURT

DATED:31/1212021

ORDER

CRP.No.3357 ot 2014

1dE J l^lt(:
c:
d oz FEB 2022
D ;q5 +1,..r c

¶51

DISMISSING THE C.R.P. WITH COSTS.

¶52

L
bl

Sri Sesha Sadanandam v. M/s. Margadarsi Chit Fund (P) Ltd.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sri Sesha Sadanandam v. M/s. Margadarsi Chit Fund (P) Ltd.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Sri Sasary Kanakaiah Vs Smt. Kashannagary Shanthoshamma

Mrs. M. Nitya Reddy, Vs The A.P. Cooperative Tribunal

Tadimarri Pillalamarri Neelima Vs Tadimarri Chandrakanth

Nagara Simhachalam Vs The Union of India and another

K. Madhava Rao Vs Sri G.V. Rao

Putta Sandeep kumar Vs Mrs Bommidi Swetha , putta Swetha