Skip to main content
LawSphereX

B.HEMASUNDER RAO v. Sri Vijay Chit Fund (Karimnagar) Pvt. Ltd

Court: High Court for State of Telangana

Bench: N.TUKARAMJI

Judgment date:

Case summary

High Court for State of Telangana judgment dated 2026-01-23. B.HEMASUNDER RAO v. Sri Vijay Chit Fund (Karimnagar) Pvt. Ltd. Read the judgment and case...

Judgment text

t3217l IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD FRIDAY THE TWENTY THIRD DAY OF JANUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY SIX PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE N. TUKARAMJI CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO: 119 OF 2026 Petrtion under Arlicle 227 of Constrtution of lndra aggneved by the order dated 13'11-2025 passed rn E P No. 408 of 2025 in ARB No 27O of 2024 on the file of the Court of the Junior Civil Judge at Karimnagar. Between 1. B. Hemasunder Rao, S/o Lachaiah. Aged about years, Occr Police Constable, O/o Ltt4D Police Station, Rlo 8-3-2381412, Bhaghatnagar, Karimnagar 2. Karra Surender, S/o Narsarah, Aged about 50 years, Occ. UDC, O/o Agricutlural Market Committee, Rio H. No. 1O-4 28011, Subhashnagar, Karrmnagar. 3 Esari Ranjithi, S/o Buchaiah, age 33 years. Occ. Senior Accountant, O/o Drstrict Treasury Offfice, R/o H. No. 7-4 103 Near Womens Degree College, Kasheemgadda, Karimnagar 4 S Srikanath, S/o Shanakaraiah, aged abor-rt 29 years. Occ: Jr.

Assistant, O/o Labour Department, Karimnagar. R/o H No 8-2-14, Gouthaminagar, Karimnagar. ... Petitioners/J DR No. 1,3,4 & 6 AND 1 Sri Vijay Chit Fund (Karimnagar) Pvt. Ltd, Rep. by its ft4anager, Karimnagar. . . . Res pon de nUD. H. R 2. Boddipally Prasada Rao, S/o Lachaiah, Aged about years, Occ: Head Constable O/o Police Guest House, R/o HN o. 8-3 4141218, Venkateshwara Colony, Karimnagar 3. Kondeti Nageshwar Reddy, S/o Buchaiah, Aged about 33 years, Occ: Sr. Assistant, O/o TSNPDCL, AAO/ERO, Gundi, Ramadugu. R/o H. No 8-2- . 1 4, Gouthaminagar, Karimnagar. 4. Ch Srinivas, S/o Venkatarah, Aged about 49 years, O,; . AR Constable, O/o AR- Platoon-lV. Karinrnagar Dist. R/o HNo. 9'1 130 Bharathnagar. Karimnagar (tlespondents No. 2 to 4 are not necessary I zrfir(:l) .. RESPOt\ I )ENTS/J. D. R 2,3,5,7 l. A. NO: 2 OF 2026 Petition Lmder Ser. iron 151 CPC praytng that in the circ:rr- ;:an:es stated rn the afftdavit filed in support of the pctition.

the High Courl may be riear;ed to S IAY all further proceedings nclrrdrng attachment of salary of the pet t: rers rn pur:;rrance of . 1 ')-7 the Order ciated 3-' 1 ?. 025 in E P. No. 408 of 2025 in ARB lll A of 2024 passed by t-earned Junior Crvrl . lridge at Karimnagar, pending drspos;r , f thc nrain CRP. Counsel for the Petitiorrers : Sri Rajesh Bathula Counsel for the Respondents: The Court made the following: ORDER IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE N. TUKARAMJI CIVIL REVISION PETITION No. 119 OF 2026 DATE : 23. 01. 2026 Between: B. Hemasunder Rao & Others ... Petitioners AND Sri Vijay Chit Fund (Karimnagar) Pvt. Ltd, &Others ... Respondents ORDER: This Civil Revision Petition is filed calling into question the legality and propriety of the salary attachment order dated 13. 11 2025, passed in E. P. No. 40B of 2025 in A R. B No.

270 of 2024 by the learned Junior Civil Judge, Karimnagar 2 Heard Sri Rajesh Bathula, Iearned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners 3. The principal grievance urged by the petitioners is that the Executing Court proceeded to issue an attachment warrant against their salaries without prior service of notice upon them. He further submits that the petitioners are willing and ready to discharge the decretal dues and seek reasonable indulgence by' r'ay of grant of time, proposing a schedule of payment within a 1 eriod of three months. On the aforesard premise, a prayer is maC: io suspend or hold in abeyance the attachment warrant, subject b c cmpliance wtth such payment schedule 4. lhave carefully perused the material availablr> on record and have given due consideration to the submissions adva rced 5 The record discloses that the Arbitral Award vas passed in February, 2024 and the present Execution Petiti : t came to be instituted in October, 2025.

lt is, therefore, m:r Lifest that the Execution Petition has been filed well within a peri: J of two years from the date of the award 6. Under Order XXI Rule 22 of the Code of Civil F r rcedure, 1908, issuance of a show-cause notice to the judgrr renldebtor IS mandatory only where execution rs sought after tl- t exprry of two years from the date of the decree or award. \\ hen execution proceedings are initiated within the said statutr> y period, the Executing Court is not obliged to issue notice prior t(, . aking coercive steps, rncluding issuance of attachment warrant within 7. ln the present case, as the execution has been levied -law, no procedural irregularity the permissible time prescribed under action of Executing court in or illegality can be attributed to the the raised issuing the attachment warrant. The contention by the petitioners regarding non-service of notice, therefore, does not merit accepta nce.

I ln view of the above legal position' thrs Court finds no tenable ground warranting interference under the revrsional jurisdiction, much less for admission of the Crvil Revision Petition However, it is made clear that the petitioners are at liberty to approach the Executing time for payment or Court with an appropriate application seeking proposing a payment schedule, and the Executing Court shall consrder the same in accordance with law. 9 Accordingly, the Civil Revision Petition is disposed of, with the above liberty. There shall be no order as to costs Consequently, [Vliscellaneous Petitions, if any pending' shall stand closed Sd/- B. REKHA RANI ASSISTANT REGISTRAR /a //TRUE COPY// SECTION OFFICER To, 1. The Junior Civil Judge at Karimnagar' 2. One CC to Srr Raiesh Bathula, Advocate [OPUC] 3. Two CD CoPtes '[yu' Sa/DL \ HIGH COURT DATED: 2310112026 IHE S h 4 e ) ! 3 'lt,: )tl)l ('). o \ ORDER a (t \) f,aTCl-r CRP. No. 119 of 2026 DISPOSING OF THE CRP k 6) -1 I )r! i

Source: Supreme Court eSCR. Dataset: Dattam Labs, CC BY 4.0. Text extracted automatically; compare with the source PDF for layout and accuracy.