JUDGMENT
M. Ramakrishna, J.
1. In this revision petition, the petitioner – chit funds company (hereinafter referred to as “the company”) having been aggrieved by the order made by the Small Causes Judge in Execution No. 1146 of 1984, dated April 12, 1985, has come up before this court hallenging the legality and correctness of that order. I heared learned counsel on both sides and perused the order under revision. A short question that arises for consideration in this revision petition is : whether the view taken by the court below in the rejecting the petition soufght to the executed holding that, under the provisions of section 64 of the Chit Funds Act, the petition is not maintainable would be justified.
2. The admitted facts as disclosed both by the order under revision and the arguments advanced on both siders are that G. Venkatachalam and the respondent – herin owed a certain sum of money payanle to thje petitioner. The petitioner having moved this court under the provisions of section 446(2)(b) of the COmpanies Act, 1956 (hereinafter referred to as “the Act”) obtained an order direcing the respondent to pay a sum of Rs. 6,972.03 payable to the comapny under liquidation. There is no dispute about that. The question is whether that order could be executed as if it is a decree. The second question is that if it is a decree, could the decree by executed before the Small Causes Court in Banglaore.
3. To answer the first question, there is no diffculty having regard to the seope of section 635 of the Companies Act. An order passed under section 446(2)(b) by the competent court could be considered as a decree which can be enforced for the purpose of realising the amount ordered to be paid. Section 635 of the Companies Act, for the purpose of enforcement of such an order, reads as follws :
“(1) Where any order made by one court is required to be enforced by another court, a certified copy of the order shall be produced to the proper officer of the court required to enforce the order.
(2) The production of such a certified copy shall be sufficient evidence of the order.
(3) Upon the production of such certified copy, the court shall take the requisite steps for enforcing the order, in the same manner as if it had been made by itself.
(4) Where any order made by the Company Law Board under section 1d7, section 18, section 19, section 79 or section 186 is required to enforced by a court, a certified copy of the order shall be produced to the proper officer of the court required to enforce the order and the provisions of sub-sections (2) and (3) shall, as far as may be, apply to every such order in the same manner and to the same extent as they apply to an order made by a court.”
4. Pursuant to the order made by this court, a certified copy of the order made by this court was sought to be executed before the Small Causes Court in Execution No. 1146 of 1984 against the respondents, Venkatachalam and another.
5. An objection was raised on behalf of the respondent-hereuin, one of the judgment-debtors, that, in view of the provisions of section 64 of the Chit Funds Act, that court had no jurisdiction to execute the order. Having regard to the plea put forward before the executing court, the following two questions came to be raise :
(1) Whether this court has jurisdiction to entertain the instant execution petition?
(2) Whether the provisions of the Karnataka Debt Relief Act, 1980, are applicable to the facts of this case ?
6. The learned Small Causes Judge having heard both sides answered the first question in the negative and the second question in the affrimative and accepted the plea put forward by the judgment debtor.The execution petition came to be dismissed. Hence, this revision petition.
7. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner took me through the provisions of section 635 of the Companies Act, exttraxcted above, and submitted that, having rfgard to the observation made by commentator Ramaiah on Companies Act, 11th edition, at page 19976, it was argued that, for the purpose of treating an order made under section 446(2)(b) of the Companies Act, that order is to be executed to realise the amount. For all purposes of execution of such orders, having regard to the provisions of the Cpde of Civil Procedure governing execution petitions, it must be treated as if the order sought ot be executed before the court having jurisdiction came to be passed by that court and, therefore, in view of the provisions of section 635, such a court will have all the powers and jurisdiction for the purpose of executing that order and to revoer the amount omvolved in the decree. However, learned counsel for the petiotioner submitted that unfortunately this argument was neither advanced before the Small Causes Court nor did it come to be considered by that court. Indeed, by a perusal of the impugned order, it is seen that the learned Small Causes Judge, in spite of considering the relevant question involved in the execution proceedings, he having dealt with section 63 of the Chiot Funds Act and the Karnataka Debt Relief Act, 1d980, reached the conclusion against the dereholder therev\by resulting in the dismissal of the execution petition.
8. Sri Shankarappa, learned counsel appearing for the respondent, however, submitted that in so far as the initial jurisdiction for the purpose of executing the order made under section 446(2)(b) of the Companies Act is concerned there may not be diffculty that the court before which the order sought to be executed (sci). However, his submission is that having regard to the provisions of the Karnataka Debt Relief Act, 1980, the judgment-debtor-respondent is entitled to the exemption for considering to be a debtor within the meaning of that Act and that the court will be bound to consider that aspect.
9. Without observing anything about the second submssion made by Shr Shankarappa as to whether the judgment-debtor-respondent is entitled to such a benefit, as it is left open to the executing court, I would consider the main question on which the revision petition has to be disposed of.
10. As I have already noticed, the Small Causes Judge who passed the order under revision failed to consider the relevant question arising in this petition. On the other hand, he proceede to consdier the scope of section 63 of the Chit Funds Act read with the provisions of the Karnataka Debt Relief Act, 1d980. This is uncontroverted.
11. The learned Small Causes Judge, instead of considering whether the execution petition as brought before it was maintainable having regard to the provision of section 635 of the Companies Act, read with the provisions of sections 8 and 14 of the Karnataka Small Causes Court Act, 1964, considered the irrelevant provision of the section 63 of the Chit Funds Act and reached a conclusion against the petitioner. This approach is incorrect and erronesous. All that the court will have to look for is whether the order sought to be executed before that court could be treated as a decree. As I have already not the earlier paragraphs, for the purpose of treating the order made by this court on the company side rto be adecree for the purpse of the same being executed to recover the money ordered to be recovered and that whether that court jas jurisdiction to do so (sic). I have already held that, in view of the provision of section 653 of the Companies Act, any order made by the company court under section 446(2)(b) of the Companies Act must be treated as a decree for the purpose of recovering the money ordered to be recovered in favour of the company. Therefore, there may be not be any difficulty in reaching that conclusion as to the question of jurisdiction of that court, both pecuniary as well as teritorial. The respondent is living within the area of that court, namely, Rajajinagar,Bangalore CIty, which is not disputed . Having regard to the provisions of section 8 of the Small Causes Court Act read with section 14, the court ought to have decided whether that court has jurisdiction to execute the order as if it were a decree, and convinced that having regard to sections 8 and 14, referrred to above, the Small Causes Court has jurisdiction to entertain the order as if it were a decree for the execution of that decree and to realise the amount involved in that decree. This point having not been considered by the Small Causes Judge, the orders under revision are liable to be set aside. In the result, the revision petition is allowed. The order made in Execution No. 1146 of 1984 dated April 12,1985, holding the petition as not maintainable is set aside. The matter stands remitted to the Small Causes Court, Bangalore City, with a direction to take appropriate action to execute the decree in accordance with law and in the light of the observations made above.
12. Since the parties to the execution petitions have been duly served, there is no need to issue a fresh notice. The court below is directed to rehear and dispose of the matter by September 30, 1990. The parties are directed to appear before the court below on September 3, 1990. Let a copy of this order be communicated to the court below immediately.