( 1 ) THIS is the judgment debtor's execution second appeal against the decree passed by the Civil Judge, Karwar, in EA. 5 of 1973, confirming the decree made by the Prl. Munsiff, Kumta, in Dharkast No. 63 of 1969. The appellant is a member of the respondent-co-operative society. A dispute was raised by the respondent under Sec. 70 of the Karnataka Co-operative socities Act, 1959 (hereinafter referred to as the 'act' ). It is not disputed that the claim made against the appellant was more than Rs. 10,000. An award came to be passed under Sec. 71 of the Act awarding more than rs. 10,000 against the appellant. After obtaining the certificate from the asst. Registrar of Co-operative Societies, as required by S. 101a of the Act, the respondent sought to execute the award in the Cojurt of the Prl. Munsiff, kumta. The appellant judgment debtor resisted the execution on the ground that the Court of the Prl. Munsiff at Kumta did not possess pecuniary jurisdiction to execute the decree and tha,t therefore the execution petition should be dismissed. That objection was overruled. The said decision has been affirmed on appeal by the learned Civil Judge, Karwar. Hence this execution second appeal. ( 2 ) THE question for consideration in this appeal is, whether the Court of the Prl. Munsiff at Kumta, has jurisdiction to- execute the award, in respect of which a certificate as required by S. 101 of the Act has been obtained by the Asst. Regr. ? The contention of Sri B. V. Acharya,, learned counsel for the appellant is that, having regard to the claim as well as the amount awarded by the Arbitrator under Sec. 71 of the Act the only court which could execute the award is the Court of the Civil Judge, at karwar. S. 101 of the Act prescribes the procedure for execution of the award made under S. 71. The award can be executed according to law and under the rules for the time being in force for the recovery of the arrears of land revenue. An alternative mode of execution is also available under s. 101 by having recourse to the Civil Court. Cl. The award can be executed according to law and under the rules for the time being in force for the recovery of the arrears of land revenue. An alternative mode of execution is also available under s. 101 by having recourse to the Civil Court. Cl. (a) of S. 101 provides that on a certificate signed by the Registrar or any other person authorised by him in this behalf, the award made under S. 71 shall be deemed to be a, decree of a Civil Court and shall be executed in the same manner as a decree of such Court,. Relying upon the provisions of Cl. (a) of S. 101 of the Act, the respondent sought to execute the award in the Court of the prl. Munsiff at Kumta, as if the award is a decree made by the said Court. The clear effect of S. 101 (a) is that on a certificate being granted-by the prescribed authority the award shall be deemed to, be a decree by a Civil court and shall be executed in the same manner as a decree of such Court. The expression 'civil Court' has not been defined in the Act, nor has it been defined in the Karnataka General Clauses Act. The expression 'civil court' has, however, been defined in S. 2 (b) of the Karnataka Civil Courts act, 1964 (shortly called the 'civil Courts Act'), to, mean a Dist. Court, court of a Civil Judge or a Munsiff's Court. In the absence of the definition tiff the expression 'civil Court' either in the Act or in the General Clauses act, it has to be assigned the meaning given to the said expression in section 2 (b) of the Civil Courts Act. If that definition is applied to clause (a) of Section 101 of the Act, it follows that on the grant of the necessary certificate by the Registrar ox any, one authorised by him, the award made under S. 71 shall be deemed to be a decree either of the Dist. Co,urt or of the Civil Judge's Court or of the Munsiff's Court. The Civil Courts Act prescribes the pecuniary limit on the jurisdiction of the Courts. Co,urt or of the Civil Judge's Court or of the Munsiff's Court. The Civil Courts Act prescribes the pecuniary limit on the jurisdiction of the Courts. S. 17 provides tha,t the jurisdiction of a Munsiff's Court shall extend to all original suits and proceedings of a civil nature, not otherwise excluded from the Munsiff's jurisdiction, of which the amount or value of the subject matter does not exceed Rs. 10,000. S. 16 provides that the jurisdiction of the Court of a Civil Judge shall extend to all original suits and proceedings of civil nature. ( 3 ) IT is clear from these provisions that so far as the Court of Munsiff is eoncerned, the pecuniary limit on the jurisdiction is fixed a,t Rs 40,000- therefore, the Court of Munsiff has no jurisdiction to entertain any suit in which the claim exceeds Rs. 10,000. In order to give full effect to the deeming provision, the limitation prescribed by the Civil Courts Act so far as the jurisdiction of the vaiious Courts are concerned, the same has to be, given full effect to. The expression "be deemed to be a decree of a, Civil court" has in the context to be understood as the appropriate Civil Court having jurisdiction under the provisions of the Civil Courts Act. It therefore follows that if the claim before the Arbitrator in a dispute raised under S. 70 of the Act does not exceed Rs. 10,000, the award on a certificate issued by the Registrar or any other person authorised by him under s. 101 shall be deemed to be a decree by the Court of Munsiff and executed as such. If, however, the claim in the dispute raised under S. 70 is more than Rs. 10,000, on the grant of a certificate by the Registrar or any person authorised by him under S. 101 of the Act, the said award shall be deemed to be a decree of the Civil Judge's Court and executed as such. I have therefore no hesitation in holding that the Court of the Prl. Munsiff at kumta had no jurisdiction to entertain the execution petition, as the claim before the Arbitrator was more than Rs. 10,000. ( 4 ) BEFORE concluding I may refer to the decision of the Calcutta High court relied upon by Sri K. I. Bhatta, learned Counsel for the respondent, nandlal Ganguli v. Narityakali Devi, AIR. Munsiff at kumta had no jurisdiction to entertain the execution petition, as the claim before the Arbitrator was more than Rs. 10,000. ( 4 ) BEFORE concluding I may refer to the decision of the Calcutta High court relied upon by Sri K. I. Bhatta, learned Counsel for the respondent, nandlal Ganguli v. Narityakali Devi, AIR. 1926 Cal. 853. That was as case in which the respondent had obtained a, certain award in an apportionment case from the President of Calcutta Improvement Tribunal. The appellant raised objections in the apportionment case and the President of the Tribunal decided against him. The appellant appealed to the High Court of Calcutta which appeal came to, be dismissed with costs. The respondent then app- lied to execute the decree for costs to, the Calcutta, Small Cause Court. As the appellant had no property within the jurisdiction of the Calcutta Small cause Court, the execution there was infructuous and it was transferred by the Small Cause Court to the Couri of the First Munsiff, Alipur, for disposal. The learned Munsiff after overruling the objections proceeded to execute the decree. His decision, was affirmed on appeal by the District court. Against the said order, an appeal was preferred to the Calcutta high Court. The claim in the appeal was Rs. 15,000 and Was beyond the pecuniary jurisdiction of the Court of Small Cause, Calcutta. It was therefore contended that the Chief Judge of the Small Cause Court, Calcutta, could not have entertained the execution petition. Sec. 5 of the Calcutta, improvement (Appeals) Act reads as follows : "the Chief Judge of the Co,urt of Small Cause of Calcutta shall, on application, execute any order passed by the Co,urt on appeal as if it was a decree made by himself. " ( 5 ) IN view of the language employed in S. 5 of the said Act, the Calcutta high Court held that notwithstanding the fact that the claim in the execution petition was more than the ordinary pecuniary jurisdiction of the Court of Small Cause the Court had jurisdiction to. execute the decree. It has to be pointed out that the deeming provision contained in S. 5 of the calcutta Act makes it clear that the decision of the Court of appeal shall be deemed to be the decision of the Chief Judge of the Small Cause and executed as such. execute the decree. It has to be pointed out that the deeming provision contained in S. 5 of the calcutta Act makes it clear that the decision of the Court of appeal shall be deemed to be the decision of the Chief Judge of the Small Cause and executed as such. In view of the express language contained in S. 5, the cal. High Couri came to the conclusion that notwithstanding the fact that the claim in the execution petition was more than the ordinary pecuniary jurisdiction of the Court of the Chief Judge of Small Cause at Calcutta, the said Court had jurisdiction to execute the decree. The provisions of s. 5 of the Calcutta Improvement (Appeals) Act are not in part materia "with S. 101a of the Act. Hence, no assistance can be derived from the aforesaid decision by the respondent. ( 6 ) FOR the reasons stated above, this execution second appeal is allowed and the judgments and decrees of the two, Courts below are set aside and the execution petition filed by the respondent is dismissed. No costs. --- *** --- .