Skip to content


Sahakari Mitra Mandal Ltd. Vs. Suryadatta Bhairavlal Rawal and ors. - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
SubjectTrusts and Societies;Civil
CourtMadhya Pradesh High Court
Decided On
Case NumberSmall Cause Revn. Nos. 73 to 76 of 1959
Judge
Reported inAIR1960MP213
ActsCode of Civil Procedure (CPC) , 1908 - Sections 48 - Order 21, Rule 11; Indore Co-operative Societies Rules - Rule 20
AppellantSahakari Mitra Mandal Ltd.
RespondentSuryadatta Bhairavlal Rawal and ors.
Appellant AdvocateM.R. Rudra, Adv.
Respondent AdvocateM.G. Upadhyaya, Adv. for ;Suryadatta, Adv., ;J.D. Patel, Adv. for ;Gopal, Adv., ;K.B. Joshi, Adv. for ;Maharajdin, Adv. and ;S.D. Sanghi, Adv. for ;Vinayak, Adv.
DispositionPetitions dismissed
Cases Referred and Nadirshaw v. Gajraj
Excerpt:
- indian penal code, 1890.section 306 :[dalveer bhandari & harjit singh bedi,jj] abetment of suicide deceased, a married woman, committed suicide - allegation of abetment of suicide against appellant husband and in-laws - ocular evidence was sketchy - dying declaration recorded by tahsildar completely exonerated all accused in-laws of any misconduct dispelling any suspicion as to their involvement - letter of threat allegedly written by appellant to father of victim was concocted piece of evidence held, though presumption against appellant can be raised, it cannot be said that onus shifts exclusively and heavily on him to prove his innocence. conviction of appellant is liable to be set aside. .....the court of small causes, indore. the learned judge held that as under rule 20 of the indore go-operative societies rules an award was executable as if it were a decree of a court, on an application to the civil court having jurisdiction, section 48 c.p.c. and article 182 limitation act applied and, therefore, fresh application for execution of an award twelve years after its date was barred. he placed reliance on anjuman imdad bahmi qarza v. imam din, air 1947 lah 269. 2. the common question raised in these petitions is whether the twelve years' limit of time for execution prescribed by section 48 c.p.c., is applicable to an application under rule 20 of the indore cooperative societies rules for the execution of an award made under the act. the argument of mr. rudra, learned counsel.....
Judgment:
ORDER

P.V. Dixit, J.

1. The petitioner in these four revision petitions is a Society registered under the Indore Co-operative Societies Act of 1914. It obtained awards under the provisions of that Act against the opponents for different sums of money. In each case, a fresh application for execution of the award was made after twelve years from, the date of the award concerned. The judgment-debtors then raised the objection that the applications for execution were barred under Section 48 C.P.C. The objection was upheld by the Court of Small Causes, Indore. The learned Judge held that as under Rule 20 of the Indore Go-operative Societies Rules an award was executable as if it were a decree of a Court, on an application to the Civil Court having jurisdiction, Section 48 C.P.C. and Article 182 Limitation Act applied and, therefore, fresh application for execution of an award twelve years after its date was barred. He placed reliance on Anjuman Imdad Bahmi Qarza v. Imam Din, AIR 1947 Lah 269.

2. The common question raised in these petitions is whether the twelve years' limit of time for execution prescribed by Section 48 C.P.C., is applicable to an application under Rule 20 of the Indore Cooperative Societies Rules for the execution of an award made under the Act. The argument of Mr. Rudra, learned counsel for the petitioner, is that an award made under the Indore Co-operative Societies Act 1914 not being a decree of a civil Court, Section 48 C.P.C. does not in terms apply to an application for execution of the award; that the fact that the award can be executed as if it were a decree of the Court does not make Section 48 C.P.C., applicable to the execution of an award.

3. I am unable to accept the contention advanced by the learned counsel for the applicant. It is true that an award made under the Act is not a decree of a civil Court and not being a decree it is not proprio vigore executable by a civil Court in accordance with the procedure prescribed in the C.P.C. But though an award is not a decree,still in the matter of enforcement, it is regarded as a decree of a civil Court. This is clear from Rule 20 (b) which says that on motion to the Civil Court having jurisdiction over the subject matter of the award the court shall enforce the award as if it were a decree of the Civil Court.

The rule means that the award shall be executed in the same manner and to the same extent as a decree of a civil Court would be executed. The C.P.C. lays down the manner of executing a decree and one of the provisions is that an application in accordance with Order 21 Rule 11 C.P.C., has to be made to the Court having jurisdiction. Under Section 48 C.P.C. a fresh application for execution twelve years after the date of the decree is barred. If, therefore, an award under the Co-operative Societies Act is to be executed as if it were a decree of a Civil Court, that is to say in the same manner as a decree would be executed, it follows that 'motion' to the Civil Court having jurisdiction contemplated by Rule 20(b) of the Indore Co-operative Societies Rules must be by an application to the Court in accordance with Order 21 Rule 11 C.P.C. by which proceedings in execution are commenced, and a fresh application for the execution of the award twelve years after its date would not be competent under Section 48, C.P.C.

The manner of execution of a decree includes not only the method of recovery of the amount awarded by it, but also includes the mode in which proceedings in execution can be commenced, as also the restrictions imposed on the mode. Whatever provisions and restrictions contained in the Code of Civil Procedure are applicable to an application for execution of a decree, will therefore apply to the execution of an award also under the Indore Co-operatives Societies Act, when in the matter of execution it has been given under Rule 20(b) the same status as a decree. A fresh application for execution of the award twelve years after its date is not competent. Learned counsel for the petitioner, conceded that Article 182 Limitation Act applied to the execution of an award. But if, as is conceded, Article 182 Limitation Act applies to an award, then it must of necessity be held that the provisions of Section 48 C.P.C., are attracted to an award under the Indore Co-operative Societies Act.

The words of the first column of Article 182 Limitation Act themselves show that where the execution is barred by Section 48 C.P.C. execution cannot be granted under that Article. In my opinion, there can be no doubt about the applicability of Section 48 C.P.C., to an award under the Indore Co-operative Societies Act. When it has to be executed as a decree of a Civil Court, the provisions of the Code of Civil Procedure about the execution of a decree including Section 48 C.P.C., would apply to an award in the matter of its execution.

4. I am fortified in the view I have taken by the decision of the Lahore High Court in AIR 1947 Lah 269. That was a case in which the question arose whether Section 48 C.P.C., was attracted to an application for execution of an award made under the Co-operative Societies Act, 1912. One of the Rules made under that Act provided that 'a decision or award shall, on application to any Civil Court having jurisdiction in the area in which the society operates be enforced in the same manner as a decree of such Court'. It was held by the-learned Judges of the Lahore High Court.

'The Civil Procedure Code lays down the manner of executing a decree and one of the provisions of the Code of Civil Procedure is that it can be executed at the outside within a period of twelve years subject to the limitations prescribed in Article182, Limitation Act. The same manner has been provided for enforcing an award given under the Co-operative Societies Act. The manner of execution includes not only the method of recovery of the amount awarded by the decree but also includes the limitation of time within which recovery can be made. An award can be enforced in the same manner that a decree could be executed.

By the provision in Rule 18(h) it was intended that for the purposes of execution an award would have the same status as a decree and whatever provisions were applicable whether of procedure or of the Limitation Act (which is also a procedural law) to the execution of decrees would be applicable to the enforcement of awards. Hence to the enforcement of an award under the Co-operative Societies Act the Article of the Limitation Act applicable is Article 182 read with Section 48 C.P.C. and not Article 181.'

To the same effect is the decision in the S.V. Subba Rao v. The Calicut Co-operative Urban Bank Ltd., AIR 1940 Mad 635. In Belvodere Jute Mills Ltd. v. Hardwarimull and Co., AIR 1927 Cal 853 and Nadirshaw v. Gajraj, AIR 1942 Bom 34 the meaning of the expression 'enforceable as if it were a decree of the Court' used with reference to an award under the Arbitration Act 1899 was considered and it was held that the expression should be read as including both the manner of execution and the time within which execution must take place. On the meaning of the expression the 'Court shall enforce the decision as if it were a decree of the Court' and on the above authorities, I think the decision of the learned Judge of the lower Court was right.

5. For these reasons, all these petitions are dismissed with costs.


Save Judgments// Add Notes // Store Search Result sets // Organizer Client Files //