Dismissed

M/s.Aasritha Chit Fund Private Limited v. Sri.J.RamaSwamy and 4 others

Telangana HC22 Mar 2022CRP/596/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court dismissed a civil revision petition filed by a chit fund company seeking a direction to the executing court to decide an execution application expeditiously. The Court observed that since an appeal against the ex parte award was pending and stayed by way of writ proceedings before this Court, executing the award was unjust and inequitable, thereby refusing the prayer.

What did the court decide?

No direction to the executing court to decide the execution application expeditiously was granted; the Civil Revision Petition was dismissed.

M/s.Aasritha Chit Fund Private Limited Vs… — Execution and Attachment | Telangana HC (2022)

¶1

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA

¶3

TUESDAY,THE TWENTY SECOND DAY OF^MARCH

¶4

TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY TWO

¶5

:PRESENT:

¶6

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE UJJAL^BHUYAN

¶7

CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO: 596^{OF 2022}

¶8

Petition under section 115 of c.P.c,^{prayingthat to directthe XVlll Additional} Senior Civil Judge, city civil courts at^{Hyderabad to decidethe E.P.No.61212019in} ABR.NO.427l2018 in the light of orders^{dated 2l.o*.020 in w.P.No. 4331 of 2020} passed by this court and dispose as^per the settled^{legal principleslaid downin} C.P.C.

¶9

Between:

¶10

I,4/s.Aasritha Chit Fund Private Limited,^Rep by^{its Managing Director} N.Krishna, S/o N.Anthaiah, Age.58 Years,^{office al 16-2-705110/4/8,3rd} Floor, Malakpet, Hyderabad

¶11

.......Petitioner/DHR

¶12

AND

¶13

1 Sri.J.RamaSwamy aa#othe+s; S/o J.Rangaiah^{Aged about50 Years,Occ.} Govt.Employee-1 74836S01 0, Primary health Center,^{Pebbair, Wanaparthy} Dist Telengana state.

¶14

2 P.Ramulu. Sio P.Narayana Aged about 51 Years, Occ.SGT O/o^{MPP School,} Apparala, Kothakotamandal, Wanaparthy dist

¶15

3 K.Venu Gopal, S/o Kistaiah Aged about 46 Years, Occ.Record^{Assistant O/o} Area Hospital D.M and HO,Wanaparthy

¶16

4 K.Shanthi, W/o JD Prasad Aged about 51 Years, Occ.Jr.Assistant^O/oTahsil Off ice, Kothakota IVada nnapur lvla nda l, Wanapa rthyDist

¶17

5 S.Pakeerappa, S/o S.Bheemappa Aged about 48 Years, Occ.MPHS(Male) O/o Dist Medical and Helath Office, Dist Hospital, Wanaparthy dist

¶18

Res pondents/J DRs

¶19

lA NO: 1 OF 2022

¶20

Petition under Section 151 CPC^praying that in the circumstances^statedin the affidavit filed in support of the^petition, the High Court may^{be pleasedto direct} the Hon'ble XVlll Addl Senior Civil Judge, City Civil Courts^{at Hyderabadto decide}

¶21

the E.p.^{No.612/201gin BR.No.42712018 in the righr of orders da.ed27,O2.2020in} W.P.No.^{4331 of 2020 passedby this Hon'ble Court and to pass' Pendingdisposal of} CRP 596^{of 2022, on the file of the High Court'}

¶22

¶23

Counsel^{for the Petitioner: Sri' VSRMV Prasad Sanaka}

¶24

Counsel^{for the Respondents:None appeared}

¶25

The Court^{made the following: ORDER}

¶26

¶27

THE HON'BLE SRI^{JUSTICE UJJAL BHIryAN} CIVIL REVISION PET^{ITION No.596OF 2022}

¶28

ORDER:

¶29

Heard Mr. Prasad Sanka,^{learned counselfor the revision} petltloner.

¶30

2 This revision petition has^{been fi1ed for a directionto the} iearned XVII I Additional^{Senior Civil Judge, City Civil Courtat} Hyderabad, to decide E.P.No.612^{of 2019 expeditiousiy.}

¶31

3 Revision petitioner is a^{chitfund company' As the} disputant it had^{approachedthe Deputy Registrar of Chits /} Arbitrator, Hyderabad in^{ArbitrationCaseNo.427 of 2018' An ex} parte award, was passed on^{03.06.2019 whereby it was held that} the disputant is entitled^{to recover from respondent No' 1 an} amount of Rs.9,73,650-00^{with interest at the rate of 18% p'a'} on the principal amount^{from the date of disputetill the date of} realization, besides costs^{of the dispute quantified at Rs'27,362-} 00.

¶32

1 Against the aforesaid^{au'ard dated03.06.2019, resPondent ' .} , No.1 preferred appeal before^{the State Governmentlnthe} appeal stay was granted by^{the appellateauthorityvideorder} dated Og.12.2Olg. This^{was challenged by the revision} petitioner before this Court by^{filing a writ petition being}

¶33

r--

¶34

W.P.No433 1 of 2020. By order dared 27.02.2020 a leanred single Judge of this Court issued notice before admission; and on the principle of parity, suspended operation of the stay order passed by the appellate authority. Thereafter, petitioner has Iiled E.P.No.6l2 of 2Ol9 for execution of the award by attachment of salary of respondent No.1 etc. Learned executing Court i.e. Court of the XVIII Additional Senior Civil Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad has taken note of pendency of the appeal filed by respondent No. 1 as well as the u,rit petition filed b1, the revision petitioner. In the circumstances, the executing Court has adjourned the matter lrom time to time.

¶35

5 Though the prayer made in the revision petitlon appears to be innocuous, on a deeper analysis it is not so.

¶36

6 In the facts and circumstances of the case, as narrated above, Court is of the view that approach adopted by the learned executing Court is just and fair. While respondent No. t has the statutory right to prefer appeal against the au,ard, which he has preferred, but the same has been stayed by this Court in a writ proceeding instituted by the revision petitioner. Both the appeal and writ petirion are pending. rn the circumsrances ir would be wholly unjust and inequitable to execute the au.ard dated 03.06.20 19, which on rhe face ol it appears to be highly.

¶37

questionable. However, court would refrain from making further comment on merit as the appeal is pending. 7 Consequently, Court is not inclined to accede to the prayer made by the revision petitioner. B Civil Revision petition is dismissed. No order as to costs. Miscellaneous petitions if any pending in this revision petition shali also stand dismissed.

¶38

ASSISTAN??.4?J+11H //TRUE COPYII To, SECTI o CER 1 The XVlll Additional Senior I Judge, city civir court, Hyderabad. one cc to sri VSRMV TT. "'u" .' tsad Sanaka' Advocate [oPU cj Two cD copies 4. One spare copy CHG BR I H

t t

HIGH COURT

DATED:2210312022

,.
/,i
o 0\i t.\r- - i,!,.^\ . clr\t<br>2I ,:.-
ir)
L)
i ,,
a.
<br>/

ORDER

CRP.No.596 ol 2022

,an)
(N

DISMISSING THE CIVIL REVISION^PETITION

M/s.Aasritha Chit Fund Private Limited v. Sri.J.RamaSwamy and 4 others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

M/s.Aasritha Chit Fund Private Limited v. Sri.J.RamaSwamy and 4 others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Akbaruddin Owaisi Vs State of a.P., Rep. by P.P. and Anr.

Akbaruddin Owaisi Vs State of Telangana and 2 Others

Akbaruddin Owaisi Vs the State of A.P. and Another

Smt. Santosha Vs Allu Yadaiah and 97 Others

M/s. New Punjab Hotel Vs R. Venkat Reddy

M/S Writer Business Services Pvt. Ltd. Vs M/S Aditya Birla Retail Ltd.