ORDER : 1. This petition is filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India to dismiss E.P. No. 53 of 2018 in Dispute No. 213 of 2014 on the file of the Court of Principal Junior Civil Judge, Narasaraopet. 2. Heard Sri M. Janardhan Rao, learned counsel for the petitioners/JDrs 2 and 3 and Sri K.M.R. Bala Prasad, learned counsel representing Sri P. Durga Prasad, learned counsel for R-1/DHr. 3. 1st respondent/DHr filed E.P. No. 53 of 2018 under Order 21, Rule 37 CPC against JDrs 1 to 3 (JDr No. 4 died) for execution of an order dated 24.08.2016 passed by the Deputy Registrar of Chits, Narasaraopet under Section 69 of the Chit Funds Act, 1982 (in short ‘the Act 1982’) based on a Certificate of Transfer of Award dated 17.02.2018 issued by the Deputy Registrar of Chits, Narasaraopet, on an application filed by the DHr under Rule 55(2) and (3) of A.P. Chit Fund Rules, 2008 (in short ‘the Rules, 2008’) to send the award/decree for execution by the Court of Principal Junior Civil Judge, Narasaraopet with a non-satisfaction memo. 4. The learned counsel for the petitioners argued as in the revision petition, mainly classify his objections into two points, viz. (1) that the Deputy Registrar is not competent and the Registrar alone is competent to issue certificate of transfer under Section 71 of the Act as held by the Division Bench of this Court in the case of Punyamuthula Venkata Viswa Sundara Rao and Another vs. M/s Margadarsi Chit Fund Private Limited, 2017 (3) ALT 639 and (2) that the execution petition shall be filed only before the Registrar who in turn has to transfer the same to a Civil Court for execution as per Rule 55 of the Rules, 2008. Therefore, he vehemently contended that the execution petition in E.P. No. 53 of 2018 is liable to be dismissed. 5. Therefore, he vehemently contended that the execution petition in E.P. No. 53 of 2018 is liable to be dismissed. 5. The learned counsel for the 1st respondent submitted that in a subsequent case between Madamanchi Anil Kumar vs. Margadarshi Chit Fund Private Limited, C.R.P. No. 2338 of 2018, dated 05.11.2018 the Division Bench of the same High Court, by distinguishing the decision in the case of Punyamuthula Venkata Viswa Sundara Rao (supra), held that the Deputy Registrar is also competent to discharge all the functions of a Registrar under the Act as per the definition under Section 2(o) of the Act, 1982 and also by virtue of the G.O. issued vide G.O.Ms. No. 1472 Revenue Registration II dated 10.12.2008 under Section 61(1) of the Act, 1982 and therefore the certificate issued by the Deputy Registrar in the present case is in accordance with law. He further submitted that the 1st respondent filed an application in I.A. No. 43 of 2018 in ACP No. 213 of 2014 dated 09.02.2018 before the Deputy Registrar as required under Section 71 r/w Rule 55 CPC and therefore the certificate was issued and thus there is no illegality in filing the execution petition by the 1st respondent before the Civil Court. 6. In reply, the learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the decision of the subsequent Division Bench in the case of Madamanchi Anil Kumar (supra) was passed contrary to the earlier view of the Division Bench and therefore the matter needs to be referred to a larger Bench and the subsequent decision cannot be followed by this Single Bench. 7. Now the points that would arise for consideration are: (1) Whether a Deputy Registrar also is competent to issue certificate under Section 71 of the Act, 1982? (2) Whether the 1st respondent/DHr has properly complied Rule 55 of the Rules, 2008 and Section 71 of the Act, 1982 to file the execution petition in E.P. No. 53 of 2018 before a Civil Court? 8. POINT No. 1: Section 71 of the Act, 1982 reads as follows: 71. (2) Whether the 1st respondent/DHr has properly complied Rule 55 of the Rules, 2008 and Section 71 of the Act, 1982 to file the execution petition in E.P. No. 53 of 2018 before a Civil Court? 8. POINT No. 1: Section 71 of the Act, 1982 reads as follows: 71. Money how recovered: Every order passed by the Registrar or the nominee under Section 68 or Section 69 and every order passed by the State Government in appeal under Section 71 for payment of any money shall, if not carried out: After going through the decisions of both Division Benches of this High Court, this Court is of the opinion that the question in point No. 1 is no more res integra as the Division Bench in the case of Madamanchi Anil Kumar (supra) has passed the decision after considering and distinguishing the decision in the earlier case in Punyamuthula Venkata Viswa Sundara Rao (supra) and specifically observed that the decision of the earlier Division Bench on that aspect is not ratio decidendi but obiter dicta and further noted that the relevant provisions like Sections 2(o) of the Act, 1982 and the concerned GOs have not been placed before the earlier Division Bench. The Division Bench in the subsequent case examined Section 2(o) of the Act which defines the word ‘Registrar’ to have included not only the Registrar but also Additional, a Joint, a Deputy or an Assistant Registrar appointed under Section 61 of the Act. Further, the Division Bench noted that G.O.Ms. No. 1472 cited supra enabled District Registrars of the Registration Districts in the State of A.P. as Deputy Registrars of Chits and the Chit Registrars as Assistant Registrars of Chits within the limits of their respective jurisdiction for the purpose of discharging the duties imposed upon the Registrar by or under the said Act as the case may be and that in view of phrase used in Section 61(1) of the Act, 1982 that the duties imposed upon by the Registrar by or under the said Act, the duties enumerated in the Rules are those imposed under the Act. Finally, the Division Bench rejected the only contention raised by the revision petitioner based upon the judgment in Punyamurthula Venkata Viswa Sunder Rao (supra). For the purpose of better understanding, the said decision from paragraphs 12 to 26 is extracted here below: 12. Finally, the Division Bench rejected the only contention raised by the revision petitioner based upon the judgment in Punyamurthula Venkata Viswa Sunder Rao (supra). For the purpose of better understanding, the said decision from paragraphs 12 to 26 is extracted here below: 12. We have two difficulties in accepting the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner. The first is that the ratio decidendi of any judgment is to be found from what it lays down and not from what follows out of it. We have seen the two points that arose for consideration in Punyamurthula Venkata Viswa Sundara Rao. Those two points formulated in paragraph 9 of the decision, do not cover and do not even extend to the conclusion that the Division Bench reached in paragraph 18. In fact, it was made clear in paragraph 18 that no argument was advanced in that regard. Therefore, what was laid down in paragraph 18 of the judgment of the Division Bench, cannot be taken as ratio decidendi of the said decision. 13. The second difficulty that we have is that certain statutory provisions and certain Government Orders were not placed before the Division Bench in Punyamurthula Venkata Viswa Sundara Rao. Section 2(o) of the Chit Funds Act, 1982 defines the word “Registrar” to mean the Registrar of Chits appointed under Section 61. Section 2(o) goes further to say that the word “Registrar” would also include an Additional, a Joint, a Deputy or an Assistant Registrar” appointed under Section 61. This definition was not noted by the Division Bench in Punyamurthula Venkata Viswa Sundara Rao. Section 61 of the Act speaks about the appointment of the Registrar and other officers. Sub-section (1) of Section 61 reads as follows: “The State Government may, by notification in the Official Gazette, appoint a Registrar of Chits and as many Additional, Joint, Deputy and Assistant Registrars as may be necessary for the purpose of discharging the duties imposed upon the Registrar by or under this Act. ” 14. Section 61(1) has two limbs. Under the first limb, the State Government is empowered to appoint a Registrar of Chits by a notification in the Official Gazette. By the second limb, the State Government is empowered to appoint as many Additional, Joint, Deputy and Assistant Registrars, for the purpose of discharging the duties imposed upon the Registrar by or under the Act. Under the first limb, the State Government is empowered to appoint a Registrar of Chits by a notification in the Official Gazette. By the second limb, the State Government is empowered to appoint as many Additional, Joint, Deputy and Assistant Registrars, for the purpose of discharging the duties imposed upon the Registrar by or under the Act. Therefore, it is clear that there was power of delegation available for the State Government to appoint Additional, Joint, Deputy and Assistant Registrars for the purpose of discharging the duties imposed upon the Registrar by or under the Act. 15. Section 66 of the Act speaks about the settlement of disputes. Under sub-section (1) of Section 66, the Registrar is entitled to settle any dispute either by himself or refer the dispute for disposal to a person appointed by him. The person to whom the Registrar refers the dispute for disposal is called as “the nominee.” Sub-Section (1) of Section 66 reads as follows: “If the Registrar is satisfied that any matter referred to him or brought to his notice is a dispute within the meaning of section 64, he shall, subject to such rules as may be prescribed, settle the dispute himself, or refer it for disposal to a person appointed by him (hereinafter in this Chapter referred to as the nominee).” 16. Where the petitioner has actually fallen into a trap is to mix up the power of delegation available under Section 61(1) with the power of nomination available under Section 66 (1). The power of delegation under Section 61(1) is available only with the Government, whereas the power of nomination merely to decide a dispute, is with the Registrar under Section 66 (1). Secondly, the delegation under Section 61(1) is only upon Additional, Joint, Deputy or Assistant Registrars. But a nomination under Section 66 (1) could be upon any person. Thirdly, the delegation under Section 61(1) is of all the duties imposed upon the Registrar. On the contrary, the nomination under Section 66 (1) is only for settling a dispute. Fourthly, the delegation under Section 61(1) can be ordered only by a notification issued in the Official Gazette. But the nomination under Section 66 (1) cannot be and need not be by publication in the Official Gazette. 17. On the contrary, the nomination under Section 66 (1) is only for settling a dispute. Fourthly, the delegation under Section 61(1) can be ordered only by a notification issued in the Official Gazette. But the nomination under Section 66 (1) cannot be and need not be by publication in the Official Gazette. 17. Unfortunately, the Division Bench in paragraph 18 of the report in Punyamurthula Venkata Viswa Sundara Rao has mistaken the power of nomination available to the Registrar under Section 66(1) to be a power of delegation. The meaning to be assigned to the word “Registrar” appearing in Rule 55(3), was not considered by the Division Bench in Punyamurthula Venkata Viswa Sundara Rao. 18. Rule 55(3) of the Rules reads as follows: “(3) On receipt of such application for execution, the Registrar shall forward the same to the proper authority for execution along with a certificate issued by him under section 71 of the said Act and a proclamation issued under rule 54 in the manner prescribed therein.” 19. The Chit Fund Rules, 2008 do not define the word “Registrar.” The definition part of the Rules contains only five words and expressions. After defining five words and expressions in Rule 2, it is stated in Rule 2 itself that the words and expressions not defined in the Rules shall have the same meaning as assigned to them in the Act. Therefore, the word “Registrar” appearing in Rule 55(3) has to be interpreted in the same manner as is defined in Section 2 (o) of the Chit Funds Act, 1982. If this is done, it will be clear that any Additional, Joint, Deputy or Assistant Registrar to whom a delegation has been made under Section 61(1) will be entitled under Rule 55(3) to issue a certificate of recovery. If the Government, by a notification in the official Gazette, issued under section 61(1), can appoint a Deputy Registrar or Assistant Registrar to perform all the duties of the post of Registrar, he becomes empowered automatically to issue a certificate of recovery under rule 55 also. The expression used in section 61(1) is “all the duties.” 20. Unfortunately: (i) the distinction between delegation under Section 61(1) and nomination under Section 66 (1). (ii) the definition of the expression “Registrar” under Section 2(o). The expression used in section 61(1) is “all the duties.” 20. Unfortunately: (i) the distinction between delegation under Section 61(1) and nomination under Section 66 (1). (ii) the definition of the expression “Registrar” under Section 2(o). (iii) the interpretation to be given to the word “Registrar” in Rule 55(3) read with the definition clause in Rule 2 of the Rules. (iv) the availability of the Gazette notifications containing delegation of powers, were all not placed before the Division Bench, which decided Punyamurthula Venkata Viswa Sundara Rao. Hence, the decision in Punyamurthula Venkata Viswa Sundara Rao cannot be taken to be an authoritative pronouncement on the question as to who is competent to issue a certificate of recovery. 21. Section 71 of the Act deals with the procedure for recovery of money. It reads as follows: “71. Money how recovered: Every order passed by the Registrar or the nominee under section 68 or section 69 and every order passed by the State Government in appeal under section 70 for payment of any money shall, if not carried out: (a) on a certificate issued by the Registrar, be deemed to be a decree of a civil court, and shall be executed in the same manner as a decree of such court. (b) be executed in accordance with the provisions of any law for the time being in force for the recovery of amounts as arrears of land revenue: Provided that no application for execution under clause (b) shall be made after the expiry of three years from the date fixed in the order and if no such date is fixed, from the date of the order.” 22. Clause (a) of Section 71 speaks about a certificate issued by the Registrar. The word “Registrar” appearing in Section 71(a) has also to be given the same meaning as found in Section 2(o). Therefore, we hold that if any Additional, Joint, Deputy or Assistant Registrar has been appointed by the State Government, by a notification in the official gazette, to perform all the duties dischargeable by the Registrar under the Act, then such a delegate will be competent to issue a certificate of recovery. It is not correct to say that the Registrar of Chits alone is competent to issue a certificate of recovery. 23. It is not correct to say that the Registrar of Chits alone is competent to issue a certificate of recovery. 23. Once the law on the issue is settled, the dispute on hand can be resolved by looking into the availability of any order issued by the Government under Section 61(1). The learned counsel for the 1st respondent produced the copies of two Gazette Notifications, one from the State of Andhra Pradesh and another from the State of Telangana. G.O.Ms. No. 1472, Revenue (Regn. II), dated 10-12-2008 issued by the State of Andhra Pradesh in exercise of the powers conferred by Section 61(1) of the Chit Funds Act, 1982 reads as follows: “In exercise of the powers conferred by sub-section (1) of Section 61 of the Chit Funds Act, 1982 (Central Act 40 of 1982) the Governor of Andhra Pradesh hereby appoints the Commissioner and Inspector General of Registration and Stamps, A.P. Hyderabad as Registrar of Chits, the Additional Inspector General-I, Office of the Commissioner and Inspector General of Registration and Stamps, A.P., Hyderabad as Additional Registrar of Chits, the Joint Inspector General-I, Office of the Commissioner and Inspector General of Registration and Stamps, and the Deputy Inspector General of their respective zones as Joint Registrars of Chits, the Assistant Inspector General (Chits) Office of the Commissioner and Inspector General of Registration and Stamps and the District Registrars of Registration Districts in the State of Andhra Pradesh as Deputy Registrars of Chits and the Chit Registrars as Assistant Registrars of Chits within the limits of their respective jurisdiction for the purpose of discharging the duties imposed upon the Registrar by or under the said Act as the case may be.” 24. In so far as the State of Telangana is concerned, the Government issued G.O.Ms. No. 260 Revenue (Registration-I), dated 11-10-2016, appointing several officers as officers empowered to discharge the duties imposed upon the Registrar by or under the Act. This Government Order was published in the Government Official Gazette extraordinary bearing No. 379-D published on 11-10-2016. 25. It must be noted that Section 61(1) carefully uses the phrase “the duties imposed upon the Registrar by or under the said Act.” The duties enumerated in the Act are those imposed by the Act. The duties enumerated in the Rules are those imposed under the Act. 25. It must be noted that Section 61(1) carefully uses the phrase “the duties imposed upon the Registrar by or under the said Act.” The duties enumerated in the Act are those imposed by the Act. The duties enumerated in the Rules are those imposed under the Act. Therefore, Rule 55(3) has to be read only in this manner and not in any other manner. 26. Thus, it is clear that the only contention raised by the petitioner based upon the judgment of this Court in Punyamurthula Venkata Viswa Sundara Rao is bound to fail. Accordingly, it fails, and the Civil Revision Petition is dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. 9. In view of the detailed discussion thereon, the contention of the revision petitioners that the decision of the earlier Division Bench in Punyamurthula Venkata Viswa Sunder Rao (supra) is still binding on this Court is not acceptable. Therefore, following the decision of the Division Bench in the case of Madamanchi Anil Kumar (supra) this Court holds that the certificate issued by the Deputy Registrar under Section 71 of the Act in the present case is valid. 10. POINT No. 2: Section 71 of the Act specifies that every order passed under Section 68 or Section 69 etc. for payment of any money shall, if not carried out, can be executed by a Civil Court in the same manner as a decree of such Court or in the alternative be executed under law for recovery of amount as arrears of land revenue. Whereas, Rule 55 which deals with the procedure for execution of the awards passed under Sections 68 or 69 of the Act reads as follows: 55. Procedure for execution of awards: (1) Every order or award passed by the Registrar, or his nominee under section 68 or 69 of the said Act, 1982 shall be forwarded by the Registrar to the foreman or to the party concerned with instructions that the foreman or, as the case may be, the party concerned should initiate execution proceedings forthwith according to the provisions of section 71 of the said Act. (2) If the amount due under the award is not forthwith recovered, or the order thereunder is not carried out, it shall be forwarded to the Registrar with an application for execution along with all information required by the Registrar, for the issue of certificate under section 71 of the said Act. The applicant shall state whether he desires to get it execute the award through a civil court or through the revenue authorities as provided under section 71 of the said Act. (3) On receipt of such application for execution, the Registrar shall forward the same to the proper authority for execution along with a certificate issued by him under section 71 of the said Act and a proclamation issued under rule 54 in the manner prescribed therein. (4) Every order passed in appeal under section 70 of the said Act shall also be executed in the manner laid down in sub-rules (2) and (3). 11. A plain reading of the Rule shows that it does not contemplate that the decree holder has to file execution petition under Order 21 CPC before the Registrar. What is contemplated under Rule 55(2) is that DHr shall forward the award with an application for execution alone with all required information to the Registrar to issue the certificate under Section 71 of the Act, 1982, if the amount due under the award is not recovered as per Rule 55(1) and on such application the Registrar shall forward the same to the proper authority for execution along with a certificate issued by him under Section 71 of the Act, 1982 etc. The Rules, 2008 do not prescribe any form of the application for execution. In the present case, a perusal of the Certificate of Transfer of Award dated 17.02.2018 issued under Section 71 of the Act by the Deputy Registrar indicates that DHr has applied for transfer of the award to the Civil Court i.e. the Principal Junior Civil Judge Court, Narasaraopet for execution with a non satisfaction memo and the same has been forwarded to the said Court. The copy of the petition so filed vide I.A. No. 43 of 2018 in ACP No. 213 of 2014 dated 09.02.2018 was also filed along with the revision petition. The copy of the petition so filed vide I.A. No. 43 of 2018 in ACP No. 213 of 2014 dated 09.02.2018 was also filed along with the revision petition. The execution petition also disclosed in column No. 8 that the award was transferred from the Deputy Registrar of Chits, Narasaraopet, Guntur District on 17.02.2018 vide I.A. No. 43 of 2018. Thus, it is clear that the DHr has duly followed the procedure contemplated under Rule 55 of the Rules, 2008 and Section 71 of the Act, 1982. Therefore, on this ground also the execution proceedings cannot be defeated. 12. Thus, in view of the observations on points No. 1 and 2, there is no merit in the revision petition. 13. In the result, the revision petition is dismissed. 14. There shall be no order as to costs. Pending miscellaneous petitions, if any, shall stand closed.