Andhra HC (Pre-Telangana)
M/S. Shriram Chits Private ... vs B. Durgaprasad Rao,S/O. B. ... on 20 September, 2016
Bench: C.V.Nagarjuna Reddy, A. Shankar Narayana
HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY AND HONBLE SRI JUSTICE A. SHANKAR NARAYANA, J ......l.,
CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.4549 of 2016
20-09-2016
M/s. Shriram Chits Private Limited,Balanagar Branch,Rep. by its GPA Holder &
General Manager..... Petitioner
B. Durgaprasad Rao,S/o. B. Satyanarayana,Hyderabad, and others......Respondents
Counsel for the Petitioner: Mr. Maheswara Rao Kuncham
Counsel for the Respondents:
<Gist:
>Head Note:
? Cases Referred:
1. 2016 (2) ALD 10 (DB)
The Court made the following:
Order: (Per Honble Sri Justice C.V.Nagarjuna Reddy)
This Civil Revision Petition arises out of order dated 12.11.2015
in E.A.No.186 of 2015 in E.P.No.178 of 2015 on the file of the
Additional Junior Civil Judge, Kukatpally at Miyapur, Ranga Reddy
District.
At the stage of considering C.R.P.M.P.No. 4147 of 2016 filed for
condonation of delay, this Court ordered notices to all the respondents.
The learned counsel for the petitioner has filed a memo vide
U.S.R.No.5651 of 2016, wherein it is stated that the notices sent to
respondent Nos.1 and 3 have been returned with the postal
endorsement not claimed and the notice sent to respondent No.2 has
been returned with the postal endorsement unclaimed and that
respondent Nos.4 and 5 have received the notices under
acknowledgment, but they have not entered appearance. This Court,
therefore, condoned the delay while observing that as respondent
Nos.1 to 3 have not claimed notices, they are deemed to have been
served. Even today, no appearance has been made on behalf of any of
the respondents.
We have heard Mr. Maheswara Rao Kuncham, learned counsel
for the petitioner and perused the record.
The petitioner, a Chit Fund Company, has raised a dispute
bearing No.260 of 2013 before the Deputy Registrar of Chits/Arbitrator
under the Chit Funds Act, 1982, against the respondents for recovery
of an amount of Rs.2,14,240/- with future interest @ 18% per annum.
Despite publication of notice in the newspaper, the respondents did not
appear before the Deputy Registrar of Chits/Arbitrator. Therefore, they
were set ex parte by the Deputy Registrar of Chits/Arbitrator on
21.02.2013 and an award was passed on 05.11.2014 in favour of the
petitioner for Rs.2,14,240/- with future interest @ 12% per annum
besides levy of costs. Based on the said award, a recovery certificate
was issued by the Deputy Registrar of Chits/Arbitrator. As the
respondents failed to pay the amount under the award, the petitioner
has filed E.P.No.178 of 2015 against them for recovery of Rs.2,65,200/-
under Order XXI Rule 48 C.P.C. By order dated 06.07.2015, the
Additional Junior Civil Judge, Kukatpally, Ranga Reddy District, has
issued salary attachment warrants against the respondents and posted
the case to 20.08.2015 for filing compliance report. At that stage, the
respondents have filed E.A.No.186 of 2015 purportedly under Order
XXI Rule 26 C.P.C for stay of all further proceedings in E.P. and for
recall of salary attachment warrants. The lower Court has allowed the
said E.A based on a Division Bench judgment of this Court in
Potlabathuni Srikanth v. Shriram City Union Finance Ltd., and
another .
From the perusal of the order of the lower Court, it would
appear that the respondents have raised the objection relating to the
jurisdiction of the lower Court in entertaining the E.P by placing reliance
on the judgment in Potlabathuni Srikanth (supra). The lower
Court, without adjudicating as to whether it has jurisdiction to entertain
the E.P, allowed the E.A filed for staying the E.P proceedings. In our
opinion, when the issue of jurisdiction was raised, the lower Court was
under the obligation to decide the said issue instead of staying the
execution proceedings.
Be that as it may, as rightly argued by Mr. Kuncham Maheswara
Rao, learned counsel for the petitioner, the judgment in Potlabathuni
Srikanth (supra) has no bearing on the case on hand. One of us
(ASNJ) spoke for the Division Bench in Potlabathuni Srikanth
(supra). That was a case, which arose out of the execution
proceedings instituted before the Senior Civil Judge, Mangalagiri, for
execution of an award passed under the Arbitration and Conciliation
Act, 1996 (for short the Act). The judgment debtor-respondent in the
E.P raised objection to the jurisdiction of the Senior Civil Judge,
Mangalagiri, based on the definition of Court under Section 2(1)(e) of
the Act. In that context, the Division Bench held that as per the
definition of Court under the said provision, the Principal Civil Court of
original jurisdiction in a district i.e., the District Court alone has
jurisdiction to entertain the Execution Proceedings and that therefore,
the Senior Civil Judge, Mangalagiri, had no jurisdiction to entertain the
E.P.
Indisputably, in the present case, the award was passed under
Section 69 of the Chit Funds Act, 1982. Under Section 71 thereof, 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 money can be executed on a
certificate issued by the Registrar which is deemed to be a decree of a
Civil Court and shall be executed in the same manner as a decree of
such Court.
In view of the fact that the Execution Petition was filed by the
petitioner before the lower Court under Section 71 (a) of the Chit Funds
Act, 1982 and not under the provisions of the Arbitration and
Conciliation Act, placing on reliance by the lower Court on the judgment
in Potlabathuni Srikanth (supra) is wholly misplaced. It is not in
dispute that if the petitioner has obtained a decree from a Civil Court,
having regard to the pecuniary value of the decree, it is only the lower
Court which has jurisdiction to entertain the E.P. Therefore, under
Section 71 (a) of the Chit Funds Act, 1982, it is only the Court below
i.e., Additional Junior Civil Judge, Kukatpally, which has jurisdiction to
entertain the E.P and adjudicate the same.
In the light of the above, the order under revision is set aside.
The lower Court is directed to proceed with the E.P on merits and
dispose of the same as expeditiously as possible.
The Civil Revision Petition is accordingly allowed.
_________________________
(C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY, J)
__________________________
A. SHANKAR NARAYANA, J
Date: 20.09.2016
No comments:
Post a Comment