Ravi Nath Tilhari, J.

Heard Sri T.D.Phani Kumar, learned counsel for the petitioner.

2. The Civil Revision Petition under Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure(in short ‘the C.P.C’), has been filed against the order dated 28.10.2025 by Judgement Debtor No.2 in E.P.No.88 of 2024, for execution of the award passed in A.C.P.No.207 of 2019 dated 26.02.2021 passed by the Deputy Registrar of Chits, Krishna at Vijayawada, under Section 69 of the Chit Fund Act, 1982

3. The 1st respondent is the Decree Holder and the respondents 2 to 5 are the Judgement Debtor Nos.1 and 3 to 5. The 6th respondent, the Senior Division Personal Officer, South Central Railway, Vijayawada, is the garnishee.

4. The award was passed on 28.02.2021 in favour of the Decree Holder in the following terms:

                          “In exercise of powers conferred under Section 69 of the Chit Fund Act, 1982, I do hereby order that the disputant is entitled to recover the claim amount of Rs.3,97,610/- (Rupees three lakhs ninety seven thousand six hundred and ten only) jointly and severally from the opponents 1 to 5 together with interest at the rate of 12% per annum on principal amount of Rs.3,66,000/- from the date of filing of the claim petition i.e. 08-08-2019 to till the date of realization and also Rs.16,926/- towards cost of this dispute. The amounts paid if any after filing of the dispute shall be given credit to.”

5. The E.P. was filed for execution. As per the docket order annexed with the C.R.P dated 23.07.2024, the order was passed observing that the Judgement Debtor No.2 was absent though notice was served. There was no representation for Judgement Debtor No.2. So he was set ex parte. Pursuant to the said order, the salary attachment of Judgment Debtor No.2 effected on 27.10.2025 was made absolute and execution petition was closed vide order dated 28.10.2025. The garnishee notice was issued to attach the petitioner’s salary to the extent of 1/3rd.

6. Challenging the order dated 28.10.2025, the present C.R.P has been filed.

7. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the notice was returned with the endorsement ‘no such person in this address’. So, the order is ex parte and cannot be sustained.

8. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that the Execution Petition was filed only against the petitioner/Judgment Debtor No.2, whereas other Judgment Debtors are also employees.

9. We have considered the aforesaid submissions and perused the record.

10. So far as the first submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner that once the notice was received with an endorsement ‘no such person in this address’ and so notice cannot be said to have been served is concerned, to a specific query made by us to the learned counsel for the petitioner, he submits that the address mentioned, in the notice for service is the correct address. Consequently, if the learned Execution Court has taken the notice as served, no fault can be found on that count. Further, any such ground of challenge has not been taken in the C.R.P. Even the orders dated 23.07.2024 and 21.10.2024 passed in Execution Court are not under challenge.

11. The said orders dated 23.07.2024 and 21.10.2024, read as under:

                          “23.07.2024

                          JDR No.2 is absent, though notice served. No representation for JDr No.2. Hence, JDr No.2 is set exparte.

                          Heard the learned counsel for the DHr. JDr is set ex parte and failed to show cause as to why decree cannot be executed against him, though notice under Order XXI Rule 22 CPC served.

                          Hence issue notice to JDr under Order XXI Rule 48 CPC through Court and RP and attach the salary of JDr under order XXI Rule 48 CPC subject to section 60 CPC on payment, of process. Call on 04-09-2024.”

                          on 21.10.2024, Execution Court passed following:

                          “21.10.2024

                          JDr is absent, though matter is posted for appearance for JDR after serving notice. No representation for JDR. Hence JDr is set exparte, for hearing call on 11.11.2024. ”

12. So far as the second submission is concerned, the award for execution is joint and several against the Judgment Debtors. So, the Decree Holder can proceed even against a single Judgment Debtor.

13. We are not satisfied with any of the submissions advanced to challenge in the order dated 28.10.2025.

14. The garnishee notice issued to recover the amount under the award from the salary @ 1/3rd , per month is in consonance with the provisions of Section 60 C.P.C.

15. We find no illegality in the order impugned.

16. The Civil Revision Petition is dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs.

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