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