CIVIL COURT JURISDICTION WHETHER BARRED UNDER SEC. 64(3) OF CENTRAL CHIT FUND ACT 1982 = if the chit was registered/commenced prior to the commencement of the Central Act, the Civil Court would have jurisdiction to entertain a suit. In the instant case, the chit commenced as could be seen from the byelaws on 28.06.2004, but the Central Act came into force on 15.09.2008.; DECREE HOLDER CAN EXECUTE THE DECREE AGAINST ALL JDRS AT ONE AND SAME TIME = It is required to be mentioned that if the decree could not be satisfied by the mere attachment of the salary of JDr No.1, the executing Court, at the instance of the Decree Holder, can proceed against the other judgment Debtors also.

published in http://judis.nic.in/judis_andhra/filename=9906

THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE R.KANTHA RAO      

CIVIL REVISION PETITION No. 1477 OF 2013    

09.04.2013

J. Rama Krishna                                 .. Petitioner    
               
And

M/s Shriram Chits Pvt. Ltd., rep. by its  Manager, Gudur Branch, Nellore
District and 5 others.                          .. Respondents

Counsel for the petitioner: Sri Sreenivasa Rao Velivela

Counsel for Respondent No.1:  Sri K. Maheswara Rao
Counsel for Respondent Nos.2 to 6  :   None appeared.

<Gist :

>Head Note :

?Citations:

O R D E R :

This Civil Revision Petition is filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of
India to set aside the docket order dated 12.07.2012 passed by the Senior Civil
Judge, Gudur in E.P. No. 66 of 2012 in O.S No.54 of 2009.

2.  Heard the learned counsel appearing for the revision petitioner-JDr No.5 and
the learned counsel for the first respondent-Decree Holder.
       
3.  The first respondent/decree holder obtained a money decree for an amount of
Rs.1,51,477/- and the amount allegedly became due in respect of chit
transaction.
The plaintiff is a Chit Fund Company.  
The decree was passed
directing the defendants to pay the decretal amount.
Thereafter, the decree
holder filed E.P. No.66 of 2012 to execute the money decree on the ground that
the amount due under the decree was not paid.  
The executing Court, in
E.P.No.66 of 2012, passed the following order on 12.07.2012:
" Issue notice to JDr through Court and R.P. 
Meanwhile attach the salary of J.Dr
subject to Section 60 C.P.C."

The said order is under challenge in this revision petition.
4.  One of the contentions urged on behalf of the revision petitioner-JDr No.5
is that
in view of the amendment to the Chit Fund Act,
the execution petition
before the Civil Court is not maintainable and therefore, the order is liable to
be set aside. 
 It is also contended that JDr.No.1, who was the principal
borrower, appeared before the Court and submitted to the Court that she has no
objection to attach her salary instead of the salary of the revision
petitioner/JDr.No.5.
5.  On the other hand, the learned counsel appearing for the first respondent-
D.Hr submits that 
Section 90 of the Chit Funds Act, 1982 (herein after referred to as the "Central Act")  repealing the A.P.Chit Funds Act (A.P. Act 9/1971provides that 
notwithstanding such repeal, the acts mentioned in sub section (1) shall continue to apply to chits in operation from the date of commencement of this Act in the same manner as they applied to such chits before such commencement.   

6.  Section 85(a) of the Central Act lays down that nothing in this Act shall apply in respect of any chit started before commencement of this Act.

7. Section 64 of the Central Act lays down that notwithstanding anything contained in any other law for the time being in force, any dispute touching the management of a chit business shall be referred by any of the parties to the dispute, to the Registrar for arbitration if each party thereto is one or the other of the following, namely :
        a).     a foreman, a prized subscriber or a non-prized subscriber, including a defaulting subscriber, past subscriber or a person claiming through a subscriber, or a deceased subscriber to a chit;
      b). a surety of a subscriber, past subscriber, or a
deceased    subscriber.

8.  Sub section 3 of Section 64 of the Central Act states that no Civil Court shall have jurisdiction to entertain any suit or other proceedings in respect of any dispute referred to in sub-section(1).
9.  Referring to the aforesaid provisions, the learned counsel appearing for the
petitioner would argue that the suit filed before the trial Court which is Civil
Court itself is not maintainable and the decree passed therein is therefore in-
executable.
10.  A combined reading of the aforesaid provisions would obviously indicate
that if the chit was registered/commenced prior to the commencement of the Central Act, the Civil Court would have jurisdiction to entertain a suit.  
In
the instant case, the chit commenced as could be seen from the byelaws on 28.06.2004, but the Central Act came into force on 15.09.2008.
11.  A perusal of the cause of action para in the plaint copy filed by the first
respondent at the hearing of the revision petition shows that the cause of
action for the suit arose on 31.01.2005, when the first defendant joined as
subscriber in chit group GNRL-5/13 and executed a chit agreement and on
14.12.2005, when the first defendant became a successful prized bidder and on
31.03.2006, when the first defendant received the amount under a cash voucher.
As such, the cause of action of the suit evidently had arisen long prior to the
commencement of the Central Act.
12.  Therefore, I see no substance in the contention urged by the learned
counsel appearing for the revision petitioner that the learned Senior Civil
Judge, Gudur, has no jurisdiction to entertain the suit and decree passed
therein is null and void.
13.  As regards the other contention that the principal borrower stated no
objection before the executing Court to attach her salary instead of the
revision petitioner/JDr No.5, there is no material available on record showing
any such undertaking.
 It is required to be mentioned that if the decree could
not be satisfied by the mere attachment of the salary of JDr No.1, the executing Court, at the instance of the Decree Holder, can proceed against the other judgment Debtors also.
14.  Therefore,  I see no illegality in the order passed by the learned
executing Court attaching the salary of JDr No.5 subject to Section 60 C.P.C.
15.  For the foregoing reasons, I do not see any merits in the revision petition
and the same is dismissed at the stage of admission.  Miscellaneous petitions,
if any, pending shall stand closed.

_________________________  
JUSTICE R. KANTHA RAO    
09/04/2013

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

Article 54 of the Limitation Act, 1963 (36 of 1963) reads as follows: “For Specific performance of a contract: Three years The date fixed for the performance, or, if no such date is fixed, when the plaintiff has notice that performance is refused.”= the apex Court in Ahmmadsahb Abdul Mila vs. Bibijan[1], wherein it was held that the date fixed for the performance of the contract should be a specified date in the calendar, and submitted that since no specified date in the calendar for performance of the contract is mentioned in the agreement of sale, the second limb of Article 54 of the Limitation Act is applicable. ; whether the suit is barred by limitation or not becomes a tribal issue and when there is a tribal issue, the lower Court ought not to have rejected the plaint at the threshold. In view of the same, order, dated 27-01-2012, in CFR.No.90 of 2012, passed by the Additional Senior Civil Judge, Ongole, (FAC) Senior Civil Judge, Darsi, is, hereby, set aside. The Appeal is allowed accordingly.

Or.18, rule 17 and sec.151 C.P.C - petition filed for reopen and examination of the executant of Ex.A1 the sale deed to fill up the lacuna in evidence pointed out at the time of arguments not maintainable = Shaik Gousiya Begum. ..Petitioner Shaik Hussan and others.... Respondents = Published in http://judis.nic.in/judis_andhra/qrydisp.aspx?filename=10515

Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 CPC. plaintiff has to prove his title and possession how he came into possession prima faice , in the absence of the same, not entitled for interim injunction = The questions as to whether the lease deed was properly stamped and whether the stamp paper on which it was typed can be said to have been procured through proper source, need to be dealt with at the stage of trial.; The suit filed by the 1st respondent, is the one for injunction simplicitor in respect of an item of immovable property. He has also filed an application under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 CPC. Basically, it was for the 1st respondent to establish that he is in possession and enjoyment of the property and that he derived the same through lawful means, particularly when he did not contend that he encroached upon the property.= assumptions of facts against to the contents of crucial third party by misreading the same- it is just un-understandable as to how the trial Court gathered the impression that Anuradha stated that there was a meeting of Board of Directors, where it was decided to lease the property to the appellants. - the trial Court itself was not clear as to whether the appellant is the lessee or a Manager or is working under any other arrangement. - The important findings that have a bearing upon the valuable rights of the parties cannot be based upon such uncertain and unverified facts. One of the cardinal principles in the matter of examining the applications filed under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 CPC is that a party claiming that relief must come to the Court with clean hands. Prima facie, we find that there are no bona fides, much less consistency on the part of the 1st respondent, in his effort to get the order of temporary injunction. The trial Court has misread the evidence and misinterpreted the facts borne out by the record.