Madras High Court
R.M. Lakshmanan vs Shri Krishna Chit Funds (Sattur) on 9 April, 2007
Author: S.Nagamuthu
Bench: S.Nagamuthu
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED: 09/04/2007 CORAM: THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE S.NAGAMUTHU CRP (NPD) (MD) No.193 of 2007 and M.P (MD) No.1 and 2 of 2007 1. R.M. Lakshmanan 2. L. Vasanthi alias Lakshmi ... Petitioners Vs Shri Krishna Chit Funds (Sattur) Pvt. Limited Rep. By its Managing Director Tmt. R.M. Umayal ... Respondent Prayer This Civil Revision Petition has been filed under Section 115 of C.P.C to set aside the order passed by the Registrar of Chits, Virudhunagar dated 09.01.2007 made in Na.Ka.No.204/u/2007. !For Petitioners ... Mr.K. Mahendran ^For Respondent ... Mr.G.R.Swaminathan :O R D E R
This Civil Revision Petition has been filed by the petitioners challenging the order of Registrar of Chits, Virudhunagar dated 09.01.2007 made in Na.Ka.No.204/u/2007.
2. Brief facts of the case are as follows:-
Originally, the respondent filed Chit case No.133 of 2006 praying for an award for a sum of Rs.60,244.66. It is the admitted fact that the petitioner herein remained exparte on 19.07.2006 and an exparte award was passed against them.
3. Subsequently, the first petitioner herein alone has filed an application No.115 of 2007 to the Registrar requesting him to set aside the exparte award. The said petition was dismissed by the impugned order dated 09.01.2007 and the same is now under challenge in this Revision.
4. The learned counsel for the petitioners would submit that the absence of the petitioners on the date of hearing was not willful and sufficient cause has been stated in the petition itself for the absence and therefore the Registrar ought to have allowed the petition.
5. Per contra, the learned counsel for the respondent would submit that the second petitioner herein has not made any application before the District Registrar for setting aside the exparte order. The impugned order came to be passed only on the petition made by the first petitioner. Therefore, the second petitioner can not maintain the revision. The second point raised by the learned counsel for the respondent is that the Registrar is not empowered to entertain any petition to set aside the award and referred to Rule 49(4) of the Chit Fund Rules, wherein the Registrar has been empowered only to pass exparte award and not to set aside the same subsequently. The learned counsel would further state that award passed by the Registrar is subject to appeal and the proper remedy is only to prefer appeal under Section 70 of the Chit Fund Act.
6. I have considered the rival contentions.
7. As rightly contended by the learned counsel for the respondent, the second petitioner has not made any petition before the Registrar seeking to set aside the exparte award and the impugned order came to be passed only on the petition made by the first petitioner and therefore the second petitioner cannot maintain this Revision. On this ground alone, the C.R.P as against the second petitioner concerned, is dismissed.
8. With regard to the second contention that the Registrar has got no power to entertain a petition to set aside the exparte award, there can be no dobut that the Registrar has not been so empowered under any of the provisions of the Act. A careful reading of Rule 49(4) of the Chit Fund Rules would show that the Registrar has been empowered only to pass an exparte award and the power to set aside the exparte award is not contained therein.
9. The learned counsel for the respondent would contend that Section 67 is a relevant provision which empowers the Registrar to entertain the petition seeking to set aside the exparte award. A careful reading of Sec.67 of the Chit Fund Act would show that the Registrar has been given only limited powers of the Civil Court as listed out in the section itself which do not include power to set aside exparte award.
10. As rightly contended by learned counsel for the respondent, any award passed under this Act, is appealable under Section 70 of the Chit Fund Act. Therefore it is for the petitioners to prefer an appeal to the authority under Section 70 of the Chit Fund Act if so advised. In the backdrop of the above conclusions, it has to be necessarily held that the Civil Revision Petition is not sustainable.
11. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, however, it is made clear that the petitioners are at liberty to prefer an appeal under Section 70 of the Chit Fund Act to the competent authority. If, any such appeal is filed, it is for the appellate authority to dispose off the same in accordance with law.
12. With the above observation, this C.R.P is dismissed. No cost. Consequently, connected M.Ps. is also closed.
To The District Munsif Court, Virudhunagar