Madras High Court
Ramesh Babu vs Margadarsi Chits (P) Ltd on 11 June, 2012
Author: G.Rajasuria
Bench: G.Rajasuria
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED:11.06.2012 Coram: THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE G.RAJASURIA C.R.P.(NPD).No.1851 of 2012 and M.P.No.1 of 2012 1. Ramesh Babu 2. K.G.Duraivel 3. M.B.Magesh 4. G.Chandrasekar ... Petitioners vs. Margadarsi Chits (P) Ltd., Kumaran Buildings N. AA-152, 3rd Avenue Anna Nagar Chennai 600 040. ... Respondent Civil revision petition preferred against the fair and decreetal order dated 28.02.2011 in E.P.No.568 of 2011 in ARC.No.2081 of 2004 passed by the X Assistant City Civil Judge, Chennai. For Petitioners : K.Amamrchand ORDER
Animadverting upon the order dated 28.02.2011 passed in E.P.No.568 of 2011 in ARC.No.2081 of 2004 by the learned X Assistant City Civil Judge, Chennai, this civil revision petition is focussed.
2. Compendiously and concisely, the germane facts absolutely necessary for the disposal of this revision petition would run thus:
At the entertaining stage itself, this Court thought fit to hear the learned counsel for the petitioners on the revision petition. The revision petitioners herein were the judgment in debtors in E.P.No.568 of 2011 in ARC No.2081 of 2004, which was filed for executing the Award passed by the authority concerned. The Executing Court has rejected the objections raised by the revision petitioners herein and now proceeds with the E.P.
3. Being aggrieved by and dissatisfied with the order of the E.P. Court, this revision is focussed.
4. The learned counsel for the petitioners placing reliance on the grounds of revision would advance his arguments, which could succinctly and pithily be set out thus:
(a) The E.P. itself is barred by limitation in view of Section 71 of the Chit Funds Act.
(b) The rate of interest claimed is above 12%,so to say at the rate of 24% per annum, which is untenable in view of the proviso to Section 28 read with Rule 63 of the Chit Fund Rules.
Accordingly, the learned counsel for the revision petitioners, would press for setting aside the order of the lower Court and for dismissal of the E.P.
5. I would like to refer to the first objection referred to by the learned counsel for the revision petitioners, thus:
6. Section 71 of the Chit Funds Act, is extracted here under for ready reference:
"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, or
(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."
(underlined by me)
7. There are two clauses (a) and (b) in it, which are alternative ones. The proviso appended to Section 71 of the Act, would unambiguously and unequivocally highlight, spotlight and shed light on the point that three years' limitation period is contemplated for executing the Award by resorting to procedure contemplated under clause (b) and not under clause (a).
8. The learned counsel for the petitioners in all fairness would submit that the Award passed by the authority concerned is sought to be enforced not as arrears of land revenue as contemplated under clause (b) of Section 71 of the Act, but only under clause (a) of the Act. In such a case, there is no knowing of the fact as to how the three years' limitation period contemplated under the proviso in respect of clause (b), could be pitted against the execution which is being carried on under clause (a) of Section 71 of the Act.
9. It is quite obvious that under Article 136 of the Limitation Act, 12 years' period of limitation is contemplated for enforcement of a money decree of a civil Court. Here under clause (a), the Award passed by the authority concerned is deemed to be a decree of a civil Court. As such, it cannot be countenanced that the E.P. is barred by limitation. Inasmuch as the E.P. having been filed admittedly well before 12 years', as the Award is dated 29.04.2005 and the second E.P. namely E.P.No.568 of 2011 was filed on 03.01.2011, it is maintainable. Accordingly, I hold that the E.P. is not barred by limitation.
10. Regarding the second point is concerned, the learned counsel for the petitioners would argue that the proviso appended to Section 28 of the Act read with 63 of the Rules, has no applicability to non-prized subscribers. However, here the revision petitioners are prized subscribers. Be that as it may, even a non-prized subscriber in order to enjoy the status of a subscriber and continue as such, he should pay the amount due payable by him on receipt of notice within G.RAJASURIA,J., gms 7 days, with 12% interest, then his status will continue and the consequences are all obvious. I need not dilate on that. The factual matrix here is different as highlighted supra. Wherefore, in my considered opinion, in a case where the Award has been obtained, the question of pressing into service, proviso 28 of the Act does not arise. Accordingly, I am of the view that there is no illegality and infirmity in the order passed by the lower Court.
11. The learned counsel for the petitioners would make a submission that at any rate, charging of 24% interest is exorbitant. If that be so, it is for him to press before the Executing Court by invoking the appropriate provision of law.
Accordingly, this civil revision petition is disposed of. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed.
Gms To The X Assistant City Civil Judge, Chennai