Alfred Henry Lionel Leach, C.J.
1. This appeal raises the question whether Article 181 or Article 182 of the Limitation Act applies to the execution of an award passed under Section 51 of the Co-operative Societies Act, 1912. If the article which applies is Article 181 an award which was filed in the Court of the District Munsif of Calicut for execution willbe time barred. If Article 182 applies it still may be executed. The District Munsif and the District Judge of South Malabar on appeal held that Article 182 applies and their decision was confirmed in a second appeal which was decided by Venkataramana Rao, J. : AIR1939Mad304 The learned Judge has dealt with the argument in full and we are in complete agreement with his observations.
2. Rule 15(7)(c) of the rules framed under the Act states that on application to the Civil Court having jurisdiction over the subject-matter of the decision or award, the Court shall enforce the decision or award as if it were a final decree of the Court, and were it not for the judgment of Cornish, J., in The Co-operative Credit Society v. Chinnaswami Udayan : AIR1937Mad31 , we should not have thought that there would have been any doubt about the applicability of Article 182. It is conceded by the learned advocate for the appellant, as it must be, that an award under the Co-operative Societies Act attracts all the provisions of the Code of Civil Procedure in the matter of execution. If it attracts all the provisions of the Code with regard to execution it must in our opinion of necessity attract the provisions of the Limitation Act which apply to the execution of decrees. The award when it is filed has to be executed as a decree of the Court and in effect it becomes a decree of the Court. As the provisions of the Code of Civil Procedure admittedly apply, the provisions of Section 48 of the Code must apply. Section 48 provides that a decree shall run for a period of twelve years, provided, of course, that steps in execution are taken at intervals of not more than three years as required by Article 182 of the Limitation Act. If Section 48 applies it follows that the appropriate article is 182 and not Article 181. If Article 182 did not apply but Article 181 did there would be a conflict as Article 181 fixes a period of three years and Section 48 a period of twelve years.
3. Considered that the question was really decided in Sambasiva Mudaliar v. Panchanada Pillai (1907) 17 M.L.J. 441 : I.L.R. 31 Mad. 24, but we do not accent that opinion. Sambasiva Mudaliar v. Panchanada Pillai (1907) 17 M.L.J. 441 : I.L.R. 31 Mad. 24, related to the provisions of Section 40 of the Revenue Recovery Act, the wording of which is very different from the wording of Rulw 15(7)(c) of the Co-operative Societies Act. We can see no reason for applying the decision in Sambasiva Mudaliar v. Panchanada Pillai (1907) 17 M.L.J. 441 : I.L.R. 31 Mad. 24, to a case like the present one, and we consider that The Co-operative Credit Society v. Chinnaswami Udayan : AIR1937Mad31 was wrongly decided.
4. As indicated by Venkataramana Rao, J., in his judgment the decision of the Calcutta High Court in In re Belvedere Jute Mills, Ltd. I.L.R.(1927) 55 Cal. 499, which was followed by this Court in The Hindu Religious Endozvments Board, Madras v. The Shirur Mutt (1934) 68 M.L.J. 200 : I.L.R. Mad. 760, has direct bearing on the question under discussion. The Calcutta case had reference to the execution of award under Section 15 of the Indian Arbitration Act, which says that where an award has been filed in Court it shall (unless the Court remits it to the reconsideration of the arbitrators or umpire or sets it aside) be enforceable as if it were a decree of the Court. It was held that Article 182 and not Article 181 applied. Rankin, C.J., remarked:
If one looks at the question of limitation from the point of view of the different alternatives, there can be one inference only and that is that the words employed by the Legislature in the first sub-section of Section IS of the Indian Arbitration Act were intended to go to the question of limitation as well as to the question of procedure.
5. There is no difference here between Section 15 of the Indian Arbitration Act and Rule 15(7)(c) of the Co-operative Societies Act and as In re Belvedere Jute Mills, Ltd. I.L.R. (1927) 55 Cal. 499 has been accepted by a Bench of this Court as embodying the correct statement of the law it decides the matter.
6. The appeal will be dismissed with costs.