JUDGMENT 1. These Civil Revision Petitions are filed challenging the orders of the orders of the District Munsif-cum-Judicial Magistrate Court at Neyveli, dated 06.10.2012, in E.P.No.419 of 2008 in A.R.No. 987 of 2007; E.P.No.67 of 2008 in A.R.No. 191 of 2007; E.P.No. 126 of 2008 in A.R.No. 107 of 2007; E.P.No. 452 of 2008 in A.R.No.419 of 2007; E.P.No.188 of 2008 in A.R.No. 557 of 2007; and E.P.No.5 of 2011 in A.R.No.465 of 2010 respectively. 2. According to the revision petitioner/Decree Holder, it is a Chit Company being run under the name and style of “Jayapriya Chit Funds (P) Limited” and it has branches at various places and it’s Head office is situated at Neyveli. According to the revision petitioner, for the non-payment of chit amount, the Chit Company, represented by its Foreman, has filed Arbitration O.Ps. viz., A.R.Nos.987 of 2007, A.R.No.191 of 2007, A.R.No. 107 of 2007 A.R.No.419 of 2007, A.R.No.557 of 2007 and A.R.No. 465 of 2010, before the Registrar of Chits, at Cuddalore, for recovery of defaulted chit payment and the Registrar of chits, after conducting an enquiry has passed the award and thereafter, the Decree Holder has filed applications before the Registrar of Chits under Section 55(2) of Tamil Nadu Chit Fund Rules, 1984, for transmitting the award to the District Munsif Court, Neyvelli, for execution and accordingly, the Registrar of Chits issued certificate and transmitted the award to the District Munsif Court, Neyveli. Thereafter, the Decree Holder has filed the Execution Petitions in E.P. No. 419 of 2008 in A.R. No. 987 of 2007, E.P. No. 67 of 2008 in A.R. No. 191 of 2007, E.P. No. 126 of 2008 in A.R. No. 107 of 2007,E.P. No. 452 of 2008 in A.R. No.419 of 2007, E. P. No. 188 of 2008 in A.R. No. 557 of 2007 and E.P. No. 5 of 2011 in A.R. No. 465 of 2010 respectively, under order 21 Rule 48 of C.P.C., against the respondents in all revisions, seeking for attachment of their salary lying in the hands of respective Garnishees based on the award passed by the Registrar of Chits. In the Execution Petitions, it is alleged that some of the respondents have appeared before the Executing Court and some of them have made part payment of chit amount. In the Execution Petitions, it is alleged that some of the respondents have appeared before the Executing Court and some of them have made part payment of chit amount. While so, the learned District Munsif, Neyveli, found that the said Court has no jurisdiction, because, though, the Chit Fund transaction alone took place at Neyveli, the respondents reside outside the jurisdiction of the Neyveli court and the Garnishees also reside outside the jurisdiction of the Neyveli Court and therefore, the said Execution Petitions were dismissed and the Decree Holder was directed to file fresh applications under Rule 55(2) of Tamil Nadu Chit Funds Rules, 1984, before the Registrar of Chits, according to law. Challenging the same, the Decree Holder is before this Court with these revisions. 3. The grievance of the learned counsel for the revision petitioner/Decree Holder is that based on the applications filed by the Decree Holder before the Registrar of Chits for transmitting the award to the District Munsif Court, Neyveli, for execution, the Registrar of chits issued certificate and transmitted the award to the District Munsif Court, Neyveli. Now, the revision petitioner is aggrieved by the order of Court below, which once again directed him to go back and file an application under Rule 55(2) of Tamil Nadu Chit Funds Rules, 1984, before the Registrar of Chits. The learned counsel would rely on the judgment of this Court reported in Kotak Mahindra Bank Limited vs. Sivakumar Sundari S. Narayana S.B. Murthy, for the proposition that any award passed by the Registrar of chits is executable by a Civil Court, as if it is a decree of Court. In the said decision, this Court has further held that, neither the Court to which an execution petition is presented can demand the same to be transmitted from some other Court, nor an award holder is entitled to approach any other Court seeking transmission. 4. Heard the learned counsel for the revision petitioner. Even though, notices have been served on the respondents, none appeared for the respondents in all the revisions, therefore, the name of the respondents was directed to be printed in the cause list. Even today, when the revisions are taken up for hearing, there is no representation on behalf of the respondents and no Advocate has also filed vakalat on behalf of the respondents. Even today, when the revisions are taken up for hearing, there is no representation on behalf of the respondents and no Advocate has also filed vakalat on behalf of the respondents. Therefore, on hearing the petitioner’s counsel and on perusing the records carefully, I am inclined to pass the following order. 5. Now the short for consideration in these Civil Revision Petitions is, Whether in the case of arbitral proceedings initiated under the Tamil Nadu Chit Funds Act, an Execution Petition can be filed in the Court to execute a decree against any person, who is not residing within the limits of its jurisdiction. 6. Admittedly, in this case, the revision petitioner/Chit Fund Company is situated at Neyveli and the transaction also took place at Neyveli, but, the respondents in all revisions reside in different places and the Garnishees in all revisions also reside in different places, as stated below:- Sl. No. Respondents inC.R.P.No. 4289/2012 Residing place ofrespondents Residing place ofGarnishees 1 K. Kumaran Virudhachalam Mangalampettai 2 R. Srinivasan Virudhachalam Mangalampettai 3 R. Ravichandran Virudhachalam Virudhachalam 4 K. Jayakandhan Virudhachalam Virudhachalam 5 M. Dhachinamoorthy Virudhachalam Trichy Sl. No. Respondents inC.R.P.No. 4110/2012 Residing place of respondents Residing place of Garnishees 1 Kolanji Virudhachalam Virudhachalam Municipality 2 K. Rangabasiyam Virudhachalam -do- 3 V. Azhappan Virudhachalam -do- 4 D. Dharmalingam Virudhachalam -do- Sl. No. Respondents inC.R.P.No. 4112/2012 Residing place of respondents Residing place of Garnishees 1 Velmurugan Chidambaran Chidambaram (Business) 2 K. Selvam Virudhachalam Cuddalore 3 M. Parthiban Virudhachalam Virudhachalam 4 V. Nandhakumar Virudhachalam Virudhachalam Sl. No. Respondents inC.R.P.No.4113/2012 Residing place of respondents Residing place of Garnishees 1 Mohandoss Panruti Taluk Panruti Taluk (Business) 2 D. Latha Panruti Taluk Panruti Taluk 3 K. Bharathkumar Cuddalore Taluk Cuddalore (Business) 4 T. Jayaraman Panruti Taluk Panruti Taluk Sl. No. Respondents inC.R.P.No.4114/2012 Residing place of respondents Residing place of Garnishees 1 C. Jayaprakash Villupuram Taluk Villupuram (Business) 2 M. Gopalakrishnan Villupuram Taluk Villupuram 3 A. K. Dhandapani Villupuram Taluk Vikkaravandi 4 B. Mohamed Usman Villupuram Taluk Villupuram 5 W. Abdul Jaffar Villupuram Taluk Chennai Sl. No. Respondents inC.R.P.No.4115/2012 Residing place of respondents Residing place of Garnishees 1 Senthilkumar Chidambaram Chidambaram (Business) 2 S. Arivuchelvan Chidambaram Sethiyathope 3 G. Gunasekaran Kattumannar Koil Taluk Chidambaram 4 D. Palanisamy Chidambaram Chidambaram Due to the non-payment of chit amount, the Arbitration O.Ps. No. Respondents inC.R.P.No.4115/2012 Residing place of respondents Residing place of Garnishees 1 Senthilkumar Chidambaram Chidambaram (Business) 2 S. Arivuchelvan Chidambaram Sethiyathope 3 G. Gunasekaran Kattumannar Koil Taluk Chidambaram 4 D. Palanisamy Chidambaram Chidambaram Due to the non-payment of chit amount, the Arbitration O.Ps. were filed by the revision petitioner/Chit Fund Company before the Registrar of Chits, Cuddalore and to that extent, the said Court had jurisdiction, because, the transaction took place at Neyveli. Thereafter, it is seen that the revision petitioner filed applications before the Registrar of Chits under Rule 55(2) of Tamil Nadu Chit Fund Rules, for transmitting the award to the District Munsif Court, Neyveli, for execution and that the Registrar of Chits issued certificate and transmitted the award to the District Munisif Court, Neyveli. Based on the said transmission order, the Decree Holder has filed Execution Petitions. Thereafter, the respondents were served with notice and Some of the respondents, even paid a portion of money admitting the liability and in some cases, attachment of salary was also ordered. But after some time, the learned District Munsif Court, Neyveli, found that the said Court does not have jurisdiction as both the respondents as well as the Garnishees were residing outside the jurisdiction of the District Munsif Court, Neyveli and therefore, has passed the orders, dated 06.10.2012, stating that the revision petitioner has to file separate applications under Rule 55(2) of Tamil Nadu Chit Funds Rules 1984, before the Registrar of Chits, which is impugned in these revisions. 7. Admittedly, the Registrar of Chits has granted the decree in the form of award and the revision petitioner filed applications before the Registrar of Chits under Rule 55(2) of Tamil Nadu Chit Fund Rules for transmitting the award to the District Munsif Court, Neyveli, for execution and the arbitration proceedings was conducted as contemplated under the Tamil Nadu Chit Funds Act. In this connection, we are now governed by the decision of this Court reported in Kotak Mahindra Bank Limited vs. Sivakumar Sundari S. Narayana S.B. Murthy, wherein, this Court has held that an arbitration award is a decree of the Court, which can be executed in the place where the property is situated or the party resides. In this connection, we are now governed by the decision of this Court reported in Kotak Mahindra Bank Limited vs. Sivakumar Sundari S. Narayana S.B. Murthy, wherein, this Court has held that an arbitration award is a decree of the Court, which can be executed in the place where the property is situated or the party resides. In fact, in the said decision, this Court has also held that there is not even any necessity for transmitting the decree, because, even if any arbitration takes place outside the jurisdiction of Court or outside the country, ultimately, it is confirmed as a decree and executed in a Court, which has got jurisdiction over the property or person. Ultimately, in the said case, it was held that the order of the lower Court directing the Decree Holder to file application under Rule 55 (2) of the Chit Fund Rules, is not correct and therefore, the lower Court was directed to proceed with the Execution Petition, without insisting on transmission order. 8. But, in the case on hand, in my considered opinion, the lower court has correctly held that insofar as the jurisdiction is concerned, even though, the award has been passed by the Arbitrator appointed under the Tamil Nadu Chit Funds Act at Cuddalore, the execution should have been done only by the relevant Courts situated within the jurisdiction, where the parties reside or the Garnishees reside, as referred to above. In the present case, admittedly, both the parties as well as the Garnishees are not residing within the jurisdiction of the Neyveli Court. Therefore, the very filing of the Execution Petitions before the District Munsif Court, Neyveli, itself is not correct. Even though, the Judgment Debtors have not objected regarding jurisdiction and even some of them have agreed to pay and accordingly, paid some portion of amount, that will not cure the defect in the jurisdiction. 9. For the foregoing reasons, I am of the view that the orders passed by the lower Court, dated 06.10.2012, is correct and it needs no interference at the hands of this Court. 10. In the result, these Civil Revision Petitions are dismissed. It is made clear that the petitioner/Decree Holder is entitled to file Execution Petitions, based on the award, without seeking for any transmission order, before the relevant Courts situated within the jurisdiction where the parties reside, for execution. No costs.