(Prayer: Petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, praying that in the circumstances stated in the grounds filed herein,the High Court may be pleased toBeing aggrieved by the Decretal order and Order dt. 28-07-2025 passed in EP.No. 2 of 2023 in Dispute No. 264 of 2022 on the file of the Court of the Learned Civil Judge, (Senior Division) Addanki the above named petitioner prefers this memorandum of Civil Revision Petition)

1. This instant Civil Revision Petition is filed by the 2nd JDr / petitioner herein against the decretal order dated 28.07.2025 passed in E.P.No.2/2023 in Dispute No.264/2022 on the file of the Court of the Learned Civil Judge (Senior Division), Addanki wherein the petition filed by the Decree Holder / Respondent No.1 herein under Order XXI Rule 54, 64 and 66 of CPC seeking to attach and sell the petition schedule property of the 2nd JDR/petitioner herein was allowed.

2. The petitioner herein is 2nd Judgment Debtor and respondents herein are decree holders in dispute No.264/2022. For the sake of convenience and clarity, parties arrayed as they were referred in Execution Proceedings. Respondent Nos.2 to 5 arrayed as not necessary parties in the present CRP.

3. The brief facts of the case:

                  The Decree Holder filed arbitration case in Dispute No.264/2022 before the Hon’ble Deputy Registrar of Chits, Narasaraopet under Section 64 of the Chit Fund Act, 1982 praying to pass an award for recovery of chit amount of Rs.25,82,336/- against the 2nd JDr and 4 others, who are Respondent Nos.2 to 5 herein. Accordingly the Deputy Registrar of Chits, Narasaraopet passed an award dated 19.12.2022 which reads as under:

                  “a. That the dispute be and the same is hereby decreed with costs.

                  b. That the Opponents 1 to 5 jointly and severally do pay to the Disputant Company a sum of Rs.25,82,336/- (Rupees TWENTY FIVE LAKHS EIGHTY TWO THOUSAND THREE HUNDRED AND THIRTY SIX ONLY) with subsequent interest @ 18% p.a. on the principal amount of Rs.20,38,786/- (Rupees TWENTY LAKHS THIRTY EIGHT THOUSAND SEVEN HUNDRED AND EIGHTY SIX ONLY) from the date of Dispute till the date of Award and thereafter 12% p.a. from the date of Award till the date of realization.

                  c. That the Opponents 1 to 5 jointly and severally do also pay to the Disputant a sum of Rs.50,419/- (Rupees FIFTY THOUSAND FOUR HUNDRED AND NINETEEN ONLY) towards costs of the dispute.

                  The Deputy Registrar of Chits, Narasaraopet also issued recovery certificate on the same day i.e,. on 19.12.2022 under Section 71(A) of the Chit Funds Act, 1982 which shows as under:

                  “RECOVERY CERTIFICATE

                  (Under Section 71(A) of the Chit Funds Act, 1982)

                  This is to certify that on 19.12.2022 an award passed in the above dispute, thereby it is ordered that the opponents 1, 2, 3, 4 and 5 do pay jointly and severally to the disputant company. The total claim amount of Rs.25,82,336/- (Rupees TWENTY FIVE LAKHS EIGHTY TWO THOUSAND THREE HUNDRED AND THIRTY SIX ONLY) with entire costs and interest at the rate of 18% per annum on the principal amount of Rs.20,38,786/- from the date of filing of the dispute i.e., 24.06.2022 till the date of Award and thereafter at 12% p.a from the date of Award till realization against the Opponents 1, 2, 3, 4 and 5 with joint and several liability. Any other payment made shall be adjusted in aforesaid quantified entitled amount. This dispute is Accordingly Awarded in favour of Disputant and against the Opponents. Costs of the dispute of Rs.50,419/- are also awarded.”

                  Pursuant to the award and recovery certificate, the Decree Holder filed E.P.No.2/2023 on the file of Senior Civil Judge Court, Addanki in Dispute No.264/2022, in which the 2nd JDr filed counter-affidavit and after conducting a detailed enquiry, recording evidence, and marking the documents, the court below allowed E.P. No. 2 of 2023 by order dated 28.07.2025 and the same was assailed in the present Civil Revision Petition.

4, Learned counsel for 2nd JDr submits that the property attached in E.P.No.2/2023 on 03.03.2023 was mortgaged in favour of Andhra Bank prior to filing of E.P itself. Now the said bank was merged with Union Bank of India. Subsequently the 2nd JDr sold the EP schedule property under a registered sale deed dated 01.09.2023 in favour of 3rd party i.e., Gundapaneni Kavitha for Rs.21,00,000/-. The said amount was credited towards mortgage loan amount with the Union Bank of India and remaining amount of Rs.1,00,062/-was paid in cash in favour of the 2nd JDr. Therefore, the EP schedule property was already mortgaged in favour of Union Bank of India and the same cannot be attached by the Court below in E.P.No.2//2023 on 03.03.2023, which is contrary to law and the said attachment against the subject property liable to be set aside. Learned counsel further submits that it is settled law that once the property was mortgaged prior to the order of an attachment in favour of any nationalized bank the same cannot be attached for any other liability or debt and even though it is attached, the decree holder won’t get any rights against the subject property for recovery of its money since the prior mortgage / secured mortgage prevails over the unsecured loans and subsequent attachments like in this instant case. Therefore, the order of Court below is contrary to the above settled principle and is not maintainable and EP itself is not maintainable. In support of his contention learned counsel for 2nd JDr also filed bank statements as well as cash receipts of the bank.

5. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the material placed on record.

6. The Court below has rightly allowed the E.P under order 21 Rule 54, 64 and 66 of CPC for recovery of amount as per the decree and award dated 19.12.2022 in Dispute No.264/2022. As contended by learned counsel for 2nd JDr/petitioner herein since the mortgage against the plaint schedule properties-A and B is prior mortgage and also secured mortgage, the same cannot be attached by the Execution Court is not valid, untenable and unsustainable for the reason that even though the property is under mortgage to the bank as secured mortgage, there is no bar for further mortgage or attachment. Any further mortgage or attachment shall be subject to prior mortgage only. Therefore, once the property is under mortgage the same cannot be attached by the Execution Court is not a merit submission and not in accordance with law as explained above and liable to be rejected.

7. The other contention of learned counsel for the 2nd JDr/petitioner herein that the property was sold away on 01.09.2023, which is certainly after the attachment of the property vide orders dated 03.03.2023. It appears that the 2nd JDr/petitioner herein sold away the subject property clearly and intentionally to avoid the attachment pursuant to the award and decree and also recovery under Execution proceedings. It is further observed that the bank itself has not initiated any proceedings under The SARFAESI (Securitization and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest) Act, 2002 on account of any default committed by the 2nd JDr. It is appropriate for the 2nd JDr to file petition before the Execution Court sought for permission to clear prior mortgage and deposit the rest of the amount with the Execution Court. Whereas, cleverly the 2nd JDr/petitioner herein without seeking any prior permission either from the Court or from the bank and without intimating the same to the bank about the order of the attachment, sold away the property as if it is a freehold property and cleared his alleged bank loans and not filed any piece of evidence showing that the property was already mortgaged to the bank except filing payment particulars to the bank. If the 2nd JDr/petitioner herein executed a prior mortgage, there must be a deed of mortgage with duly stamped and duly registered and other loan agreements duly stamped, but the relevant documents are not filed herewith except orally stating that the property was mortgaged to Union Bank of India. Therefore, the 2nd JDr/petitioner herein intentionally might have been played fraud against the decree holder and also against Court below and cleverly created 3rd party interest by way of sale transaction. Therefore, it is settled law that a person who acted contrary to law and with fraudulent intention to defeat the interest of the decree holder and resorted for ingenious intelligence to defeat the decree and award cannot be countenanced by this Court and such person is not entitled to any equitable relief as prayed. In the present case, the conduct of the 2nd JDr/petitioner clearly demonstrates that he attempted to defeat the decree and the award as well as the orders passed in E.P. No.2 of 2023 dated 28.07.2025 by creating third-party interest against the attached property without the permission of the Execution Court. Such acts are liable to be declared as fraudulent transactions and are void and not binding on the decree holder, and the 2nd JDr/petitioner is liable to face the consequences even for criminal action in accordance with law. Accordingly, the claim put forth by the 2nd JDr/petitioner does not hold any merit, contrary to law and liable to be rejected consideration.

8. Therefore, the present CRP is dismissed with costs. Accordingly, the 2nd JDr/petitioner herein is directed to pay an amount of Rs.5,000/- to the credit of the Secretary, District Legal Services Authority, Prakasam District within a period of four (04) weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.

                  As a sequel, interlocutory applications, if any, pending shall stand closed.