HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE R. SUBHASH REDDY CRP NO.36 OF 2010 09-03-2010 Between: Chirra Vanaja … Petitioner And Ch.Narender and others … Respondents Order: This Civil Revision Petition, under Section 115 CPC, is filed by the Judgment Debtor No.3 aggrieved by the order dated 30-10-2009 passed in E.P.No.233 of 2005 in O.S.No.723 of 2001 on the file of the Court of Principal Senior Civil Judge, Warangal. The said E.P filed by the 1st respondent under Order XXI Rule 43 of CPC for recovery of Rs.2,36,006/- by sale of the petition schedule property was ordered, overruling the objections lodged by the petitioner herein. 2. The first respondent herein is the plaintiff in the suit O.S.No.723 of 2001 on the file of the Court of Principal Senior Civil Judge, Warangal. The husband of the petitioner herein and one M/s.Rajani Chit Fund Private Limited were made as 1st and 2nd defendants respectively in the suit. In the suit itself, it is stated by the 1st respondent-plaintiff that the 1st defendant was the relative of the plaintiff and on the request made by his brother to advance an amount of Rs.1 lakh for meeting the requirements of the 2nd defendant-Chit Fund Company, he has paid that amount to the 1st defendant by obtaining a promissory note. During the course of hearing, the learned counsel for the respondents has also produced the suit promissory note, a perusal of which indicates that it was signed by the 1st defendant in an individual capacity. Ultimately, the suit was decreed in Lok- Adalat and the 1st defendant has signed on the papers before the Lok- Adalat in his individual capacity. Based on the same, the award was passed. 3. Certain properties were attached during the pendency of the suit, at which point of time, the 1st defendant was alive. After award by the Lok-Adalat, Execution Petition was filed to enforce the decree. During the pendency of E.P, the 1st defendant died. As such the petitioner who is his wife and their children were brought on record as legal heirs. In the execution proceedings, in E.P.No.233 of 2005, when the 1st respondent was seeking to sell the immovable property for realization of the decretal amount of Rs.2,33,006/- the petitioner herein has raised an objection stating that inasmuch as the 1st defendant was the Director of the Chit Fund Company, in the absence of the personal liability, the property which belongs to the petitioner cannot be attached and sold for realization of the decretal amount. The Court below has overruled the said objection and ordered the execution proceedings in E.P.No.233 of 2005. 4. In this Civil Revision Petition, it is contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner that in view of the judgment of this Court in Chanumolu Anil Kumar Vs. Vasu Cotton and ginning Mills ([1]) the properties of the petitioner cannot be attached and sold. It is further submitted that a decree obtained against a Company and its directors cannot be enforced against the directors when no fraud is alleged against them. 5. The said plea of the petitioner cannot be accepted in this case. From the averments of the plaint in O.S.No.723 of 2001 it is clearly alleged that the 1st defendant had borrowed the amount in an individual capacity to meet the expenses of the Chit Fund Company and the promissory note was executed in his individual capacity and even in the award before the Lok Adalat he entered into the compromise in an individual capacity. It is also to be noticed that during the pendency of the suit itself, some of the properties were attached before judgment. At that point of time, there was no objection from the petitioner. Because the 1st defendant died during the pendency of the E.P, the petitioner was brought on record as legal heir being the wife of the 1st defendant. In that view of the matter, she has raised at this belated stage but it is to be noted that as the decree was against the individual and the 1st defendant has received the amount in his individual capacity by executing promissory note and the settlement was arrived at by the plaintiff and the 1st defendant in their individual capacity, in that view of the matter, the judgment relied on by the learned counsel for the petitioner in the case of Chanumolu Anil Kumar (supra) would not render any assistance in support of his arguments. In view of the findings recorded by the Court below, I do not find any illegality, which warrants interference under Section 115 CPC. 6. The Civil Revision Petition is devoid of merits and is accordingly dismissed. No order as to costs. ____________________ R. SUBHASH REDDY, J 9th MARCH 2010 TSNR [1] 1989 (2) ALT 649 (D.B)