1. This Civil Revision Petition is filed by the petitioner/Judgment Debtor No.2 aggrieved by the registration of E.P.No.65 of 2022 in ARB No.166 of 2018 on the file of Principal Junior Civil Judge, at Nizamabad, basing on the recovery certificate issued by the Deputy Registrar dated 15.01.2021.

2. Heard the submissions of learned counsel for both sides and perused the record.

3. The learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the Executing Court erred in entertaining the execution petition as the award dated 15.01.2021 is not a valid executable decree. It is further contended that the Deputy Registrar is not competent to issue a final recovery certificate unless the same is certified by the Registrar under Section 71 of the Chit Funds Act and therefore, the execution petition itself is not maintainable. It is also contended that the respondent No.1/decree holder cannot directly initiate execution proceedings and only the Registrar is competent to do so. It is further contended that the petitioner is only a guarantor and the execution ought to have been proceeded first against the principal debtor. The learned counsel submitted that the execution proceedings are without jurisdiction and violative of principles of natural justice. The learned counsel for the petitioner filed a memo dated 01.04.2026 enclosing the salary attachment warrant and docket proceedings of E.P.No.65 of 2022 and ultimately prayed this Court to set aside the proceedings in the E.P.

4. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the respondent No.1 has filed counter affidavit of the respondent No.1 and contended that the award dated 15.01.2021 passed by the Deputy Registrar of Chits is valid and enforceable and the same has attained finality. It is further contended that the recovery certificate issued under Section 71 of the Chit Funds Act is executable and the execution petition filed by the decree holder is perfectly maintainable. It is also contended that the petitioner, being a guarantor, is jointly and severally liable along with the principal debtor and therefore, the decree holder is entitled to proceed against any of the judgment debtors. It is further contended that identical contentions raised by the very same petitioner were already considered and rejected by this Court in C.R.P.No.422 of 2025 and therefore, the present revision petition is not maintainable and ultimately prayed this Court to dismiss the same.

5. As seen from the material placed on record, the dispute arises out of an award passed by the Deputy Registrar of Chits, Nizamabad, in ARB No.166 of 2018 dated 15.01.2021, wherein the principal debtor and the guarantors, including the present petitioner, were held jointly and severally liable for the amount due. Pursuant thereto, recovery certificate was issued and the same was put into execution by filing E.P.No.65 of 2022. It is not in dispute that the petitioner herein had earlier challenged the execution proceedings in respect of the very same award by filing C.R.P.No.422 of 2025, which was disposed of by this Court vide order dated 07.02.2025. In the said order, this Court categorically held that when the execution petition is filed within two years from the date of award, no notice under Order XXI Rule 22 CPC is required and issuance of attachment process is justified. It was further held that the guarantor, being jointly and severally liable, cannot resist execution on the ground that the decree holder did not proceed against the principal debtor. This Court also observed that once the award has attained finality and recovery certificate is issued, the same is executable and no illegality can be attributed to the execution proceedings.

6. Further, as per the documents enclosed to the memo dated 01.04.2026 filed by the petitioner, it is evident that the salary attachment warrant against the petitioner/Judgment Debtor No.2 was issued on 06.03.2026 and the same was duly executed. Recording the said compliance, the executing Court has closed E.P.No.65 of 2022 on 30.03.2026.

7. In view of the above findings recorded in the earlier round of litigation between the same parties in respect of the same subject matter and also in view of the subsequent development that the execution petition itself has been closed on 30.03.2026 following the execution of the attachment warrant, this Court is of the considered opinion that the present Civil Revision Petition is devoid of merit. The contentions now raised are nothing but a repetition of the earlier grounds, which were already negatived.

8. In the result, this Civil Revision Petition is dismissed. No order as to costs.

Miscellaneous petitions, if any, shall stand closed.