Research › Search › Judgment

Karnataka High Court · body

2021 DIGILAW 159 (KAR)

Hunnime Chits (P) Ltd. v. Parashuram Revaneppa

2021-01-27

P.KRISHNA BHAT

body2021
ORDER : P. Krishna Bhat, J. 1. These petitions are filed under Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, calling in question the legality and validity of the orders dated 28.05.2018 passed in Execution Petition Nos. 22/2018, 24/2018, 26/2018 and 70/2016 by the learned Principal Civil Judge and I Additional JMFC, Ranebennur, returning the Execution Petitions filed by the petitioner herein (common in all CRPs) for want of jurisdiction. 2. There is no dispute about the fact that petitioner herein is a Foreman within the meaning of sub-Section (j) to Section 2 of the Chit Funds Act, 1982 (for short, hereinafter referred to as the Act). The petitioner initiated proceedings under Section 64 of the Act for holding arbitration for the purpose of recovery of amounts due from the respondent No. 1 who was the subscriber to the chit and respondent No. 2 who was the surety for the transaction. The nominee of the competent authority namely the Registrar, entered upon arbitration of the dispute and passed the awards dated 02.02.2018 directing the respondents herein to pay amount of Rs. 80,994/- in CRP No. 100053/2018, Rs. 1,22,563/- in CRP No. 100054/2018, Rs. 1,45,648/- in CRP No. 100055/2018 and by award dated 17.10.2016 directing the respondents herein to pay Rs. 18,357/- in CRP No. 100056/2018 jointly and severally with interest thereon at 16% per annum from the date of the award till the date of payment with cost of Rs. 2,500/- in CRP No. 100053/2018, Rs. 3,000/- in CRP No. 100054/2018 and 100055/2018 and Rs. 1,500/- in CRP No. 100056/2018. Pursuant to the same, certificates came to be issued under Section 71(a) of the Act as contemplated under the Act. The petitioner filed execution petitions before the learned Principal Civil Judge at Ranebennur in Execution Petition Nos. 22/2018, 24/2018, 26/2018 and 70/2016 respectively by producing the certificates. Learned Court below by impugned orders dated 28.05.2018 has held that the said Court has no jurisdiction to entertain the Execution Petitions, in as much as, the certificate issued by the competent authority on the award passed was not forwarded by the Registrar himself, but it was filed into the Executing Court by the petitioner himself. Accordingly, learned Court below has directed the petitions to be returned with all documents to the petitioner or his counsel. 3. Accordingly, learned Court below has directed the petitions to be returned with all documents to the petitioner or his counsel. 3. Calling in question the validity of the impugned orders, learned counsel Miss V. Vidya submits that learned Court below has misapprehended the scope of Section 71 of the Act, in as much as, once the award is passed and certificate is issued, the certificate can be put into execution before a trial Court by the party in whose favour award has been passed or he can seek for issue of certificate for initiating proceedings for recovery of the award amount as arrears of land revenue. She further submits that in these particular instances, the petitioner in whose favour the awards have been passed has chosen to file execution proceedings by filing into the Court below the certificate issued by the competent authority, and the learned Court below could not have returned the same on the ground that such certificates should have been forwarded by the Registrar himself and it is not competent for the party who is the beneficiary under the award to initiate execution proceedings himself. In support of the said contention she places reliance on a decision of this Court reported in ILR 2006 Kar 498 : (2005 AIR Kant. HCR 2869) (M/s. Shriram Chits (Bangalore) Ltd. v. Sri Panchakshari and another. 4. Respondents though served have remained unrepresented. 5. Perusal of the document produced along with these revision petitions shows that on a petition presented by the petitioner herein who is a Foreman within the meaning of sub-Section (j) of Section 2 of the Act, the nominee of the Registrar has entered upon arbitration and passed the awards as per Annexure 'C' dated 02.02.2018 in CRP No. 100053/2018, 100054/2018 and 100055/2018 and annexure 'C' dated 17.10.2016 in CRP No. 100056/2018. Subsequent to the same under Section 71(a) of the Act, the competent authority has issued the certificates. Thereafter, the petitioner herein has initiated execution case Nos. 22/2018, 24/2018, 26/2018 and 70/2016 respectively before the learned Court below by filing into the said Court along with the Execution Petitions the certificates issued by the competent authority. 6. Subsequent to the same under Section 71(a) of the Act, the competent authority has issued the certificates. Thereafter, the petitioner herein has initiated execution case Nos. 22/2018, 24/2018, 26/2018 and 70/2016 respectively before the learned Court below by filing into the said Court along with the Execution Petitions the certificates issued by the competent authority. 6. The question for consideration now is whether there is a requirement under the Act that execution proceedings could be maintained before a civil Court only upon a Registrar forwarding the certificate issued by him under Section 71(a) of the Act and whether it is not competent for the beneficiary under the award to produce the certificate before the Civil Court and initiate execution proceedings on his own? The above question is no longer res integra. 7. This Court in a decision reported in ILR 2006 Kar 498 (M/s. Shriram Chits (Bangalore) Ltd. v. Sri Panchakshari and another), upon consideration of several aspects including the question as to whether the Registrar alone has to forward the certificate issued under Section 71(a) of the Act in order to enable a Civil Court to entertain execution proceedings, has observed as follows: "29. For the foregoing reasons, it is held that the certificate issued by the Registrar of Co-operative Societies itself is sufficient to file it before the competent Court which has jurisdiction. If such Court has no jurisdiction it can exercise powers under Section 39 for transferring of the decree for further proceedings before the competent Court. In that view of the matter, the dismissal of Ex. Case No. 130/2000, dated 2.2.2001 by the II Addl. Civil Judge (Sr. Dn.), Mangalore, is hereby set aside and it is ordered to restore the Ex. Case No. 130/2000 and proceed to pass appropriate orders in accordance with law." 8. In view of the above position as enunciated in the above decision, learned trial Court was in error in returning the Execution Petitions on the sole ground that Registrar has not referred the certificate for execution to the Civil Court and in fact, it was filed into Court by the petitioner himself. 9. In that view of the matter, the order of the trial Court, impugned herein, is illegal and it is liable to be set aside. 10. Hence, the following: ORDER Above petitions are allowed. The orders dated 28.05.2018 passed in Execution Petition Nos. 9. In that view of the matter, the order of the trial Court, impugned herein, is illegal and it is liable to be set aside. 10. Hence, the following: ORDER Above petitions are allowed. The orders dated 28.05.2018 passed in Execution Petition Nos. 22/2018, 24/2018, 26/2018 and 70/2016 by the learned Principal Civil Judge and I Additional JMFC, Ranebennur, returning the Execution Petitions filed by the petitioner herein as one without jurisdiction before the said Court is set aside and the learned Principal Civil Judge and I Additional JMFC, Ranebennur, is directed to entertain the execution proceedings by restoring the applications to its file and proceed with the same, in accordance with law.