As per case facts, the petitioner, Bokka Venkat Reddy, challenged an award and recovery certificate issued by the 3rd respondent (Deputy Registrar of Chits/Arbitrator) for a flat he purchased, which ...
Date of reserved for orders : 16.09.2026
Date of pronouncement : 15.10.2026
Date of uploading :
APHC010262262018
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH
AT AMARAVATI
(Special Original Jurisdiction)
[3333]
FRIDAY, THE 16
th
DAY OF OCTOBER 2026
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE V.SUJATHA
WRIT PETITION NO: 11618, 11621 & 11632/2018
WRIT PETITION NO: 11618/2018
Between:
1. BOKKA VENKAT REDDY, S/O. LATE B. JAGGA REDDY, AGED
ABOUT 44 YEARS, OCC BUSINESS, R/O. H. NO. 9 -127, OPP.
SAIRAM CINEMA H ALL, SOUTH VENKATESHWARA NGAR,
MALKAJGIRI, MEDCHAL-MALKAJGIRI DISTRICT-047.
...PETITIONER
AND
1. THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, REP. BY ITS PRINCIPAL
SECRETARY, REVENUE (REGISTRATION -II) DEPARTMENT,
SECRETARIAT, VIJAYAWADA.
2. THE REGISTRAR OF CHITS GOVERNMENT OF ANDHRA
PRADESH, O/O. COMMISSIONER AND INSPECTOR GENERAL
REGISTRATION AND STAMPS, VIJAYAWADA.
3. THE DEPUTY REGISTRAR OF CHITS/ARBITRATOR,
NARASARAOPET, GUNTUR DISTRICT.
4. M/S VENKATA TIRUMALA CHIT FUND P LTD, NARASARAOPETA
BRANCH, REP. BY ITS MANAGER/FOREMAN, AT ARUNDELPET,
NARASARAOPET, GUNTUR DISTRICT.
2
VS,J
W.P.Nos.11618, 11621 &
11632 of 2018
5. A SUBBA REDDY DIED, MANAGING PARTNER, SANKAR AUTO
STORES,
6. A SIVA MOHAN REDDY, S/O. SUBBA REDDY, GREEN LANDS
FOOD PARADISE, SRI SWATHI ANUKAR COMPLEX, GROUND
FLOOR, AMEERPET, HYDERABAD-16.
7. B NARSI REDDY, S/O.CHINNA VENKATA SUBBA REDDY, AGED
MAJOR, R/O. H. NO. 4 -5-29/53, GAYATRI NILYAMA, PATEL
NAGAR, VIDYANAGAR, GUNTUR.
8. A PADMAVATHI, W/O. SIVA MOHAN REDDY, GREEN LANDS
FOOD PARADISE, SRI SWATHI ANUKAR COMPLEX, GROUN D
FLOOR, AMEERPET, HYDERABAD -16.
9. A RANGAMMA, W/O. LATE SUBBA REDDY, AGED MAJOR, R/O.
FLAT NO. 303, 3RD FLOOR RAMANNA TOWERS, PLOT NO. 201,
FIRST LINE, RAMANNAPETA, GUNTUR.
10. A LAKSHMI TULSAI, D/O. LATE SUBBA REDDY, W/O. SURENDAR
REDDY AGED MAJO R, R/O. PLOT NO. 78 AND 79, JAWAHAR RAIL
COLONY, SICK ROAD, SECUNDERABAD.
11. A SUDHA RANI, W/O. B. SUGUNAKAR REDDY, AGED MAJOR,
OCC DOCTOR. R/O. FLAT NO .202, 2ND FLOOR, JYOTHI
SUPREME APARTMENTS, H. NO. 8 -3-1044 AND 1044/1, PLOT NO.
87, SRINAGAR COLONY, SECUNDERABAD.
12. A SRINIVASA REDDY, S/O. LATE SUBBA REDDY, AGED MAJOR,
R/O. 11 LILLY RD EDISON, NEW JERSEY - 08820 USA.
13. SYPUREDDY SRINIVASA KONDANDA RAMAN, S/O. LATE S.
VENKATA RAO, AGE 49 YEARS, OCC BANK EMPLOYEE, R/O. H.
NO. 30-272/5/2A/1, SANTHOSHIMA NAGAR, DAV PUBLIC SCHOOL,
NEREDMENT, MALKAJGIRI, MEDCHAL -MALKAJGIRI DIST.
...RESPONDENT(S):
Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying that in the
circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High Court may be
pleased to to issue an order or direction more particularly one in the nature of
3
VS,J
W.P.Nos.11618, 11621 &
11632 of 2018
Writ of Mandamus declaring the impugned award dated 21-03-2014 passed in
Dispute No. 25/2013 passed by the 3rd respondent allegedly in the capacity of
the arbitrator and issuing the recovery certificate on the same day for
Rs.60,004/- and further action of 4th respondent in filing E.P. No. 97/2014 for
execution of the award as against the Flat of the petitioner, as illegal, arbitrary
and without jurisdiction and consequently declare the action of the 4th
respondent in executing the said award as against the flat, which the petitioner
purchased by way of registered sale deed, as the 2nd respondent has not
appointed 3rd respondent as his nominee under Gazette Notification by duly
following the provisions U/Sec. 66 (1) R/w Rule 48 of A.P. Chit Fund Rules,
2008 to pass such an impugned award, and pass
IA NO: 1 OF 2018
Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated
in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased
To stay all further proceedings in pursuant to the award dated 21-03-2014
passed in Dispute No. 25/2013 passed by the 3rd respondent including the
consequential execution of the award as initiated by the 4th respondent in
E.P. No. 97/2014 as against the flat of the petitioner, pending disposal of main
Writ Petition.
IA NO: 2 OF 2018
Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated
in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to
vacate the interim olrders dated. 09.04.2018 passed in I.A.No. 01/2018 in
W.P.No. 11618/2018 and pass
IA NO: 1 OF 2026
Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated
in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased
may be pleased to grant leave to the petitioner herein/Respondent No 3 in the
Writ Petition No. 11618 of 2018 to file counter affidavit in the above Writ
Petition and pass
Counsel for the Petitioner:
4
VS,J
W.P.Nos.11618, 11621 &
11632 of 2018
1. SRICHARAN TELAPROLU
Counsel for the Respondent(S):
1. GP FOR REGISTRATION AND STAMPS (AP)
2. P DURGA PRASAD
WRIT PETITION NO: 11621/2018
Between:
1. BOKKA VENKAT REDDY, S/O. LATE B. JAGGA REDDY, AGED
ABOUT 44 YEARS, OCC. BUSINESS, R/O. H. NO. 9 -127, OPP..
SAIRAM CINEMA HALL, SOUTH VENKATESHWARA NGAR,
MALKAJGIRI, MEDCHAL-MALKAJGIRI DISTRICT-047.
...PETITIONER
AND
1. THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, REP. BY ITS PRINCIPAL
SECRETARY, REVENUE (REGISTRATION -I1) DEPARTMENT,
SECRETARIAT, VIJAYAWADA.
2. THE REGISTRAR OF CHITS, GOVERNMENT OF ANDHRA
PRADESH, O/O. COMMISSIONER AND INSPECTOR GENERAL
REGISTRATION AND STAMPS, VIJAYAWADA.
3. THE DEPUTY REGISTRAR OF CHITS/ARBITRATOR,
NARASARAOPET, GUNTUR DISTRICT.
4. M/S VENKATA TIRUMALA CHIT FUND P LTD, NARASARAOP ETA
BRANCH, REP. BY ITS MANAGER/FOREMAN, AT ARUNDELPET,
NARASARAOPET, GUNTUR DISTRICT.
5. M/S SHANKAR AUTO AND HARD WARE, REP. BY A. SUBBA
REDDY (DIED)
6. A SIVA MOHAN REDDY, S/O. SUBBA REDDY, GREEN LANDS
FOOD PARADISE, SRI SWATHI ANUKAR COMPLEX, GROUN D
FLOOR, AMEERPET, HYDERABAD -16.
5
VS,J
W.P.Nos.11618, 11621 &
11632 of 2018
7. V SIVA PRASADA RAO, S/O. RANGA RAO, AGED. MAJOR, OCC.
BUSINESS, RIO. H. NO. 14-138/1, VIDYA NAGAR, ELURU, WEST
GODAVARI.
8. A PADMAVATHI, W/O. SIVA MOHAN REDDY, GREEN LANDS
FOOD PARADISE, SRI SWATHI ANUKAR COMPLEX, GROUND
FLOOR, AMEERPET, HYDERABAD -16.
9. A RANGAMMA, W/O. LATE SUBBA REDDY, AGED. MAJOR, RIO.
FLAT NO. 303, R FLOOR RAMANNA TOWERS, PLOT NO. 201,
FIRST LINE, RAMANNAPETA, GUNTUR.
10. A LAKSHMI TULSAI, D/O. LATE SUBBA REDDY, W/O. SURENDAR
REDDY, AGED MAJOR, R/O. PLOT NO. 78 AND 79, JAWAHAR
RAIL COLONY, SICK ROAD, SECUNDERABAD.
11. A SUDHA RANI, W/O. B. SUGUNAKAR REDDY, AGED . MAJOR,
OCC. DOCTOR. R/O. FLAT NO .202, 2ND FLOOR, JYOTHI
SUPREME APARTMENTS, H. NO. 8 -3-1044 AND 1044/1, PLOT NO.
87, SRINAGAR COLONY, SECUNDERABAD.
12. A SRINIVASA REDDY, S/O. LATE SUBBA REDDY, AGED . MAJOR,
RIO. 11 LILLY RD EDISON, NEW JERSEY -08820 USA.
13. SYPUREDDY SRINIVASA KONDANDA RAMAN, S/O. LATE S.
VENKATA RAO, AGE. 49 YEARS, OCC. BANK EMPLOYEE, RIO. H.
NO. 30-272/5/2A/1, SANTHOSHIMA NAGAR, DAV PUBLIC SCHOOL,
NEREDMENT, MALKAJGIRI, MEDCHAL -MALKAJGIRI DIST.
...RESPONDENT(S):
Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying that in the
circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High Court may be
pleased toto issue an order or direction more particularly one in the nature of
Writ of Mandamus declaring the impugned award dated 21-03-2014 passed in
Dispute No. 27/2013 passed by the 3rd respondent allegedly in the capacity of
the arbitrator and issuing the recovery certificate on the same day for
Rs.60,004/- and further action of 4th respondent in filing E.P. No. 98/2014 for
execution of the award as against the Flat of the petitioner, as illegal, arbitrary
and without jurisdiction and consequently declare the action of the 4th
6
VS,J
W.P.Nos.11618, 11621 &
11632 of 2018
respondent in executing the said award as against the flat, which the petitioner
purchased by way of registered sale deed, as the 2nd respondent has not
appointed 3rd respondent as his nominee under Gazette Notification by duly
following the provisions U/Sec. 66 (1) R/w Rule 48 of A.P. Chit Fund Rules,
2008 to pass such an impugned award, and pass
IA NO: 1 OF 2018
Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated
in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to
stay all further proceedings in pursuant to the award dated 21-03-2014 passed
in Dispute No, 27/2013 passed by the 3rd respondent including the
consequential execution of the award as initiated by the 4th respondent in
E.P. No, 98/2014 as against the flat of the petitioner, pending disposal of main
Writ Petition.
IA NO: 2 OF 2018
Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated
in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to
vacate the interim orders dated.10.04.2018 passed in I.A.No. 01 of 2018 in
W.P.No. 11621/2018 and ppass
IA NO: 1 OF 2026
Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated
in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased
may be pleased to grant leave to the petitioner herein/Respondent No 3 in the
Writ Petition No. 11621 of 2018 to file counter affidavit in the above Writ
Petition and pass
Counsel for the Petitioner:
1. SRICHARAN TELAPROLU
Counsel for the Respondent(S):
1. GP FOR REVENUE (AP)
2. GP FOR REGISTRATION AND STAMPS (AP)
7
VS,J
W.P.Nos.11618, 11621 &
11632 of 2018
3. P DURGA PRASAD
WRIT PETITION NO: 11632/2018
Between:
1. BOKKA VENKAT REDDY, S/O. LATE B. JAGGA REDDY, AGED
ABOUT 44 YEARS, OCC. BUSI NESS, R/O. H. NO. 9-127, OPP..
SAIRAM CINEMA HALL, SOUTH VENKATESHWARA NGAR,
MALKAJGIRI, MEDCHAL-MALKAJGIRI DISTRICT-047.
...PETITIONER
AND
1. THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, REP. BY ITS PRINCIPAL
SECRETARY, REVENUE (REGISTRATION -II) DEPARTMENT,
SECRETARIAT, VIJAYAWADA.
2. THE REGISTRAR OF CHITS, GOVERNMENT OF ANDHRA
PRADESH, O/O. COMMISSIONER AND INSPECTOR GENERAL
REGISTRATION AND STAMPS, VIJAYAWADA.
3. THE DEPUTY REGISTRAR OF CHITS/ARBITRATOR,
NARASARAOPET, GUNTUR DISTRICT.
4. M/S VENKATA TIRUMA LA CHIT FUND P LTD, NARASARAOPETA
BRANCH, REP. BY ITS MANAGER/FOREMAN, AT ARUNDELPET,
NARASARAOPET, GUNTUR DISTRICT.
5. A SUBBA REDDY DIED, MANAGING PARTNER, SANKAR AUTO
STORES.
6. A PADMAVATHI, W/O. SIVA MOHAN REDDY, GREEN LANDS
FOOD PARADISE, SRI SWA THI ANUKAR COMPLEX, GROUND
FLOOR, AMEERPET, HYDERABAD -16.
7. A SIVA MOHAN REDDY, S/O. SUBBA REDDY, GREEN LANDS
FOOD PARADISE, SRI SWATHI ANUKAR COMPLEX, GROUND
FLOOR, AMEERPET, HYDERABAD -16.
8
VS,J
W.P.Nos.11618, 11621 &
11632 of 2018
8. B NARSI REDDY, S/O.CHINNA VENKATA SUBBA REDDY, AGED.
MAJOR, R/O. H. NO. 4-5-29/53, GAYATRI NILYAMA, PATEL
NAGAR, VIDYANAGAR, GUNTUR.
9. A RANGAMMA, W/O. LATE SUBBA REDDY, AGED. MAJOR, R/O.
FLAT NO. 303, 3RD FLOOR RAMANNA TOWERS, PLOT NO. 201,
FIRST LINE, RAMANNAPETA, GUNTUR.
10. A LAKSHMI TULSAI, D/O. LATE SUBBA REDDY, W/O. SURENDAR
REDDY, AGED MAJOR, R/O. PLOT NO. 78 AND 79, JAWAHAR
RAIL COLONY, SICK ROAD, SECUNDERABAD.
11. A SUDHA RANI, W/O. B. SUGUNAKAR REDDY, AGED . MAJOR,
OCC. DOCTOR, R/O. FLAT NO .202, 2ND FLOOR, JYOTHI
SUPREME APARTMENTS, H. NO. 8-3-1044 AND 1044/1, PLOT NO.
87, SRINAGAR COLONY, SECUNDERABAD.
12. A SRINIVASA REDDY, S/O. LATE SUBBA REDDY, AGED . MAJOR,
R/O. 11 LILLY RD EDISON, NEW JERSEY - 08820, USA.
13. SYPUREDDY SRINIVASA KONDANDA RAMAN, S/O. LATE S.
VENKATA RAO, AGE. 49 YEA RS, OCC. BANK EMPLOYEE, R/O. H.
NO. 30-272/5/2A/1, SANTHOSHIMA NAGAR, DAV PUBLIC SCHOOL,
NEREDMENT, MALKAJGIRI, MEDCHAL -MALKAJGIRI DIST.
(RESPONDENTS 5 TO 13 ARE NOT NECESSARY PARTIES TO
THIS WRIT PETITION)
...RESPONDENT(S):
Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying that in the
circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High Court may be
pleased toto issue an order or direction more particularly one in the nature of
Writ of Mandamus declaring the impugned award dated 21-03-2014 passed in
Dispute No. 26/2013 passed by the 3rd respondent allegedly in the capacity of
the arbitrator and issuing the recovery certificate on the same day for
Rs.60,004/- and further action of 4th respondent in filing E.P. No. 96/2014 for
execution of the award as against the Flat of the petitioner, as illegal, arbitrary
and without jurisdiction and consequently declare the action of the 4th
respondent in executing the said award as against the flat, which the petitioner
purchased by way of registered sale deed, as the 2nd respondent has not
9
VS,J
W.P.Nos.11618, 11621 &
11632 of 2018
appointed 3rd respondent as his nominee under Gazette Notification by duly
following the provisions U/Sec. 66 (1) R/w Rule 48 of A.P. Chit Fund Rules,
2008 to pass
IA NO: 1 OF 2018
Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated
in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to
stay all further proceedings in pursuant to the award dated 21-03-2014 passed
in Dispute No. 26/2013 passed by the 3rd respo ndent including the
consequential execution of the award as initiated by the 4th respondent in
E.P. No. 96/2014 as against the flat of the petitioner, pending disposal of main
Writ Petition.
IA NO: 2 OF 2018
Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated
in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to
vacate the interim order dated. 09.04.2018 passed in I.A.No. 01/2018 in
W.P.No.11632/2018 and pass
Counsel for the Petitioner:
1. SRICHARAN TELAPRO LU
Counsel for the Respondent(S):
1. GP FOR REGISTRATION AND STAMPS (AP)
2. P DURGA PRASAD
The Court made the following:
10
VS,J
W.P.Nos.11618, 11621 &
11632 of 2018
COMMON ORDER:
All these writ petitions have been filed by the same petitioner and the
issue involved in these writ petitions is identical. Hence, I feel it appropriate to
decide the issue involved in these writ petitions by way of a common order by
taking W.P.No.11618 of 2018 as leading case.
2. W.P.No.11618 of 2018 came to be filed under Article 226 of the
Constitution of India, seeking the following prayer:
―…to issue an order or direction more particularly
one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the
impugned award dated 21 -03-2014 passed in
Dispute No. 25/2013 passed by the 3rd respondent
allegedly in the capacity of the arbitrator and issuing
the recovery certificate on the same day for
Rs.60,004/- and further action of 4th respondent in
filing E.P. No. 97/2014 for execution of the award as
against the Flat of the petitioner, as illegal, arbitrary
and without jurisdiction and consequently declare the
action of the 4th respondent in executing the said
award as against the flat, which the petitioner
purchased by way of registered sale deed, as the
2nd respondent has not appointed 3rd respondent
as his nominee under Gazette Notification by duly
following the provisions U/Sec. 66 (1) R/w Rule 48 of
A.P. Chit Fund Rules, 2008 to pass such an
impugned award, and pass…‖
3. Brief facts of the case are that originally, the flat admeasuring
994.92 square yards, on the West-Northern corner of Kubera towers, situated
on the third floor of Kubera towers, Arundelpet, Guntur with proportionate
11
VS,J
W.P.Nos.11618, 11621 &
11632 of 2018
undivided share of land admeasuring 30.69 square yards, belongs to one
Subba Reddy – 4
th
respondent, who mortgaged the same in City Union Bank,
Hyderabad in order to obtain loan. The 10
th
respondent – daughter of Subba
Reddy, cleared the loan obtained by her father and subsequent to death of
Subba Reddy, his legal heirs executed a registered release deed dated
26.10.2010 in favour of the 10
th
respondent; in the year 2013, the 10
th
respondent executed a registered gift deed dated 18.01.2013 in favour of her
husband by name S. Surendar Reddy, who in turn sold the subject property in
favour of vendor of the petitioner herein i.e., 13
th
respondent – Sypureddy
Srinivasa Kondanda Raman, by way of a registered sale deed dated
12.02.2013.
4. While the subject property was in possession of the 13
th
respondent, the 4
th
respondent company raised a dispute bearing No.25 of
2013, before the 3
rd
respondent – The Deputy Registrar of Chits/Arbitrator,
Narasaraopet, Guntur district, under Section 64 of the Chit Fund Act, 1982 for
recovery of Rs.17,65,076/- along with interest and costs from respondent
Nos.5 to 12 herein. The 3
rd
respondent, in exercise of his powers conferred
under Section 69 of the Chit Fund Act, 1982, passed an award dated
21.03.2014 wherein, it was held that the 4
th
respondent is entitled to recover
Rs.16,82,933/- from respondent Nos.5 to 12 herein. On the same day, the 3
rd
respondent, issued Recovery Certificate under Section 71(A) of the Chit Fund
12
VS,J
W.P.Nos.11618, 11621 &
11632 of 2018
Act, 1982. Subsequently, the 4
th
respondent filed E.P.No.97 of 2014 in
dispute No.25 of 2013 on the file of the Court of the III Additional District and
Sessions Judge, Guntur under Order XXI Rule 11 of the Code of Civil
Procedure with a request to issue notice to respondent Nos.5 to 12 under
Order XXI Rule 54 (1a) of CPC for attaching the subject flat and to issue
another notice under Order XXI Rule 66 of CPC, to proclaim, publish and sell
the subject flat in open Court auction and realize the amount payable to the
4
th
respondent. The attachment of the subject property was effected on
20.08.2014.
5. At that juncture, the 13
th
respondent, filed E.A.No.265 of 2015 in
E.P.No.97 of 2014 before the III Additional District Judge, Guntur, under
Order XXI Rule 58(1) and 3 of CPC, for raising the attachment over the
subject property; pending the said application, the petitioner purchased the
subject property from the 13
th
respondent under registered sale deed bearing
document No.9417/2017, dated 29.11.2017 and thereafter, the application
filed by the 13
th
respondent was dismissed vide order dated 11.12.2017.
Aggrieved by the order passed by the 3
rd
respondent in the award dated
21.03.2014 in dispute No.25 of 2013, the petitioner filed the present writ
petition on the following grounds:
1. ―The impugned award dated 21.03.2014
passed by the 3
rd
respondent in Dispute
No.25/2013 is illegal, arbitrary and without
jurisdiction, as the 3
rd
respondent allegedly
13
VS,J
W.P.Nos.11618, 11621 &
11632 of 2018
exercised the powers of the Registrar of
Chits without being validly appointed as a
nominee in accordance with Section 66(1) of
the A.P. Chit Funds Act, 1982, read with
Rule 48 of the A.P. Chit Fund Rules, 2008.
2. The 2
nd
respondent, while delegating powers
to subordinate officers i.e., the 3
rd
respondent, to adjudicate disputes under the
Act, failed to comply with the mandatory
requirements of Rule 48, particularly the
requirement of appointment of the
Registrar‘s nominee by a notification
published in the Official Gazette.
3. The 3
rd
respondent acted contrary to the
statutory scheme by issuing the recovery
certificate under Section 71 of the Act
simultaneously with the award dated
21.03.2014, without allowing the aggrieved
party an effective opportunity to avail the
statutory remedy of appeal under Section 70
of the Act, read with Rule 55 of the Rules.
4. The action of the 4th respondent in
proceeding against the subject flat in
execution of the impugned award is illegal
and arbitrary, as the petitioner purchased
the flat under a registered sale deed dated
29.11.2017, Document No.9417/2017, from
the person claiming ownership thereof. The
petitioner contends that the property, having
been transferred to him, cannot be
proceeded against in execution of the award
without lawful authority.
6. When the writ petition came up for admission on 09.04.2018, this
Court passed an interim order in I.A.No.1 of 2018 by staying all further
14
VS,J
W.P.Nos.11618, 11621 &
11632 of 2018
proceedings pursuant to the award dated 21.03.2014 passed by the 3
rd
respondent in dispute No.25 of 2013 and the consequential petition filed by
the 4
th
respondent in E.P.No.97 of 2014 on the file of the Court of the III
Additional District Judge, Guntur.
7. The 3
rd
respondent filed a counter affidavit denying the
averments of the petitioner and contended that the petitioner has no interest
either in the capacity of a party to the E.P., proceedings or any interest as
against the E.P., property; as such, the petitioner cannot question the validity
of the award passed by the 3
rd
respondent. The 4
th
respondent has also filed
a detailed counter affidavit enclosed with a vacate stay petition, wherein it is
stated that the 4
th
respondent – M/s. Venkata Tirumala Chit Fund Private
Limited, is a company registered under Companies Act, 1956; that the 5
th
respondent, being the managing partner of Shankar Auto and Hardware
Stores, joined the 4
th
respondent as a member of chit valued at
Rs.30,00,000/-; the 5
th
respondent participated in the bid conducted on
26.09.2010 and succeeded in receiving the amount; for the said amount,
respondent Nos.6 to 8 stood as guarantors. As the 5
th
respondent defaulted
payment of chit installments, the 4
th
respondent filed dispute No.25 of 2013
before the 3
rd
respondent and obtained an award in its favour vide award
dated 21.03.2014. Seeking execution of the said award, the 4
th
respondent
15
VS,J
W.P.Nos.11618, 11621 &
11632 of 2018
filed E.P.No.97 of 2014 in dispute No.25 of 2013 before the Court below
seeking attachment of the subject flat.
8. It is further contended in the counter affidavit that subsequent to
the death of the 5
th
respondent, respondent Nos.6 to 12, conspired to evade
the debt due to the 4
th
respondent and executed a gift deed in favour of 10
th
respondent as if all of them have relinquished their share in her favour;
thereafter, within days, the 10
th
respondent conveyed the subject flat in favour
of her husband, as if she is the absolute owner of the flat. The relinquishment
deed standing in the name of 10
th
respondent does not have legal sanctity
and as such, the gift deed executed in favour of her husband also would not
have any legal sanctity. Upon filing of E.P.No.97 of 2014, the 13
th
respondent
filed claim petition before the Court below bearing E.A.No.265 of 2015 in
E.P.No.97 of 2014, stating that he is a bonafide purchaser of the subject flat
and that he purchased the same from the husband of the 10
th
respondent; the
said application was dismissed by the Court below vide order dated
11.12.2017 declaring that the 13
th
respondent failed to establish that he is the
bonafide purchaser of the subject flat. The said dismissal order was
challenged by the petitioner before this Court by filing A.S.No.555 of 2018
and the same is pending adjudication.
9. It is further averred in the counter affidavit that pursuant to the
notification issued by the Government of India, Ministry of Finance, dated
16
VS,J
W.P.Nos.11618, 11621 &
11632 of 2018
15.09.2008, the Government of Andhra Pradesh, vide G.O.Ms.No.1472,
Revenue (Regn.II) department, dated 10.12.2008, appointed (i) the
Commissioner and Inspector General of Registration and Stamps, Andhra
Pradesh, Hyderabad as Registrar of Chits, (ii) the Additional Inspector
General-I as Additional Registrar of Chits, (iii) the joint Inspector General-I
and Deputy Inspector General as Joint Registrar of Chits of their respective
zones (iv) Assistant Inspector General (Chits) and District Registrars of
Registration district in the State of Andhra Pradesh as Deputy Registrars of
Chits and (v) the Chit Registrars as Assistant Registrars of Chits, for the
purpose of discharging duties imposed upon the Registrar under Act. It is
further stated that the Government of Andhra Pradesh issued
G.O.Ms.No.1474, (Regn.II) Department dated 10-12-2008, wherein the
Government empowered Assistant Registrars of Chits in the State of Andhra
Pradesh to accord sanction to commence or conduct the chit under the Chit
Funds Act and pursuant to Government memo bearing
No.73233/Regn.II/A1/95 dated 16.09.2008 and 26.09.2008, the Registrar of
Chits, A.P. Hyderabad issued proceedings No.CF/27858/93 dated
24.12.2008, wherein it is mentioned that the Chit Funds Act, 1982 came in
force in the State of Andhra Pradesh from 15-09-2008 and the Registrar of
Chits exercising the powers conferred on him under Rule 64 of the A.P. Chit
17
VS,J
W.P.Nos.11618, 11621 &
11632 of 2018
Funds Rules, 2008, delegated the duties of the Registrar under various
provisions of the Act to the following officers:
S.No. Designation Designation under the
Chit Funds Act, 1982
Duties of the
Registrar
delegated under
these sections
1 District Registrars of
the Registration
Districts
Deputy Registrar of Chits 26, 34, 41, 46,
48, 49, 50, 52,
53, 54, 55, 56,
58, 62, 64, 65,
66, 67, 68, 69,
71, 75, 81 and 82
2 Chit Registrars Assistant Registrar of
Chits
4, 7, 9, 10, 16,
18, 20, 24, 28,
29, 30, 31, 37,
38, 40, 41, 46,
62, 75, 81 and 82
As such, the award and recovery certificate issued by the 3
rd
respondent are valid and the contention of the petitioner that the 3
rd
respondent has no such power to issue the same is not tenable in the eye of
law. Hence, requested to dismiss the writ petition by vacating the interim
order granted by this Court.
18
VS,J
W.P.Nos.11618, 11621 &
11632 of 2018
10. Heard Sri. Sricharan Telaprolu, learned counsel for the petitioner,
Sri. M. Durga Prasad, learned Standing Counsel for the 4
th
respondent and
learned Assistant Government Pleader for Stamps and Registration.
11. During the course of hearing, learned counsel for the petitioner
reiterated the facts as narrated in the writ affidavit; he further argued that the
3
rd
respondent has passed the award in dispute No.25 of 2013 and also
issued recover certificate under Section 71(A) of the Chit Fund Act, 1982 on
the same date i.e., 21.03.2014 and as such, the execution petition filed by the
4
th
respondent on the file of the Court of the III Additional District and
Sessions Judge, Guntur is not maintainable. No opportunity was given to the
13
th
respondent before filing the execution petition before the Court below,
though affording such an opportunity is contemplated under the Act and the
Rules. He further contended that as per Section 71 of the Act, the decree
holder has to obtain a certificate from the Registrar to refer the execution
petition to the Civil Court as per the decision of the High Court in
Punyamuthula Venkata Viswa Sundara Rao and another Vs. M/s.
Margadarsi Chit Fund Private Limited
1
. Further, as per Rule 55 of the A.P.
Chit Funds Rules, 2008, the execution proceedings should be initiated by
party concerned in accordance with provisions of Section 71 of the Chit Fund
Act. The procedure for filing execution petition in the Civil Court is only
1
2017 (3) ALT 639
19
VS,J
W.P.Nos.11618, 11621 &
11632 of 2018
through the Registrar, who in turn forwards the application for execution to
the proper authority along with a certificate issued by him under Section 71 of
the Act. Section 71 of the Act provides that on a certificate issued, the award
acquires the status of a decree of the Civil Court and if the award passed by
the Registrar or his nominee is not carried out on a certificate issued by the
Registrar, the award shall be deemed to be a decree of Civil Court and shall
be executed in the same manner as a decree of the Civil Court. If the amount
due under the award is not recovered or the order thereunder is not carried
out, then only the award shall be forwarded to the Registrar with an
application for execution, along with all information required by the Registrar,
for issuance of certificate under Section 71 of the Act. Learned counsel
further contended that under Section 71(A) of the Act, the 3
rd
respondent
cannot issue any certificate and that it is for the 2
nd
respondent – Registrar of
Chits alone to issue such certificate as per the procedure laid down under the
Rules, which are to be strictly followed. Hence requested to set-aside the
impugned award dated 21.03.2014 and all the consequential proceedings.
12. On the other hand, learned Standing Counsel for the 4
th
respondent denied the contentions raised by learned counsel for the
petitioner. Learned counsel, relying on a decision of the Hon‘ble Division
Bench of this Court in Madamanchi Anil Kumar Vs. Margadarshi Chit
20
VS,J
W.P.Nos.11618, 11621 &
11632 of 2018
Fund Pvt. Limited
2
, contended that the decision relied on by learned counsel
for the petitioner was distinguished, wherein it was held that the Deputy
Registrar is also competent to discharge all the functions of a Registrar under
the Act as per the definition under Section 2(o) of the Act, 1982 and also by
virtue of G.O.Ms.No.1472,dated 10.12.2008. As such, the certificate issued
by the 3
rd
respondent in the present case is in accordance with law. He
further contended that there is no illegality in filing the execution petition by
the 4
th
respondent before the Court below. Hence requested to dismiss the
writ petition.
13. Perused the material available on record. Based on the facts and
circumstances of the case, the points that would arise for consideration are:
1) ―Whether the 3rd respondent was
competent and duly authorised under
the provisions of the Andhra Pradesh
Chit Funds Act, 1982, and the Andhra
Pradesh Chit Funds Rules, 2008, issue
certificate under Section 71 of the Act,
1982 and if so, whether the award dated
21.03.2014 and the consequential
recovery certificate issued on the same
day under Section 71-A of the Act are
sustainable?
2) Whether the 4
th
respondent has properly
complied Rule 55 of the Rules, 2008 and
Section 71 of the Act, 1982 to file the
execution petition in E.P.No.97 of 2014
2
CRP No.2338 of 2018, dated 05.11.2018
21
VS,J
W.P.Nos.11618, 11621 &
11632 of 2018
on the file of the Court of the III
Additional District and Sessions Judge,
Guntur?
POINT NO:1
14. It is the case of the petitioner that the 3
rd
respondent herein is not
competent enough, to issue recovery certificate under Section 71(A) of the
Act and that only the 2
nd
respondent – Registrar is competent to issue a
certificate. The petitioner relied on a judgment of this Court in Punyamuthula
Venkata Viswa Sundara Rao and another Vs. M/s. Margadarsi Chit Fund
Private Limited (supra). On the other hand, the 4
th
respondent, relying on a
decision of Madamanchi Anil Kumar Vs. Margadarshi Chit Fund Pvt.
Limited (supra), contend that even the 3
rd
respondent is also competent to
issue certificate in view of delegation of powers by the Government.
15. At this juncture, it is apt to refer to Section 71 of the Act, which
reads as under:
“71.Money how recovered. -- Every order passed
by the Registrar or the nominee under Section 68 or
Section 69 and every order passed by the State
Government in appeal under Section 70 for payment
of any money shall, if not carried out, ---
(a)On a certificate issued by the Registrar, be
deemed to be a decree of a civil Court, and shall be
executed in the same manner as a decree of such
Court, or
(b) be executed in accordance with the provisions of
any law for the time being in force for recovery of
amounts as arrears of land revenue.
22
VS,J
W.P.Nos.11618, 11621 &
11632 of 2018
Provided that no application for execution under
clause (b) shall be made after the expiry of three
years from the date fixed in the order, and if no such
date is fixed, from the date of order.‖
16. After going through the decisions of both Division Benches of this
High Court relied upon by learned counsel on either side, this Court is of the
opinion that the question in point No.1 is no more res integra as the Division
Bench in the case of Madamanchi Anil Kumar (supra) has considered the
issue and distinguished the decision in the earlier case in Punyamuthula
Venkata Viswa Sundara Rao (supra) and specifically observed that the
decision of the earlier Division Bench on that aspect is not ratio decidendi but
obiter dicta and further noted that the relevant provisions like Sections 2(o) of
the Act, 1982 and the concerned GOs have not been placed before the
earlier Division Bench. The Division Bench in the subsequent case examined
Section 2(o) of the Act which defines the word ‗Registrar‘ to have included not
only the Registrar but also Additional, Joint, Deputy or an Assistant Registrar
appointed under Section 61 of the Act. Further, the Division Bench noted
that G.O.Ms.No.1472 cited supra enabled District Registrars of the
Registration Districts in the State of A.P., to perform the function of Deputy
Registrars of Chits and the Chit Registrars as Assistant Registrars of Chits
within the limits of their respective jurisdiction for the purpose of discharging
the duties imposed upon the Registrar by or under the said Act as the case
23
VS,J
W.P.Nos.11618, 11621 &
11632 of 2018
may be and that in view of phrase used in Section 61(1) of the Act, 1982 that
the duties imposed upon by the Registrar by or under the said Act, the duties
enumerated in the Rules are those imposed under the Act. For the purpose
of better understanding, the paragraphs 12 to 26 of the judgment in
Madamanchi Anil Kumar Vs. Margadarshi Chit Fund Pvt. Limited (supra)
which are relevant are extracted here below.
12. We have two difficulties in accepting the
contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner.
The first is that the ratio decidendi of any judgment is
to be found from what it lays down and not from what
follows out of it. We have seen the two points that
arose for consideration in Punyamurthula Venkata
Viswa Sundara Rao. Those two points formulated in
paragraph 9 of the decision, do not cover and do not
even extend to the conclusion that the Division
Bench reached in paragraph 18. In fact, it was made
clear in paragraph 18 that no argument was
advanced in that regard. Therefore, what was laid
down in paragraph 18 of the judgment of the Division
Bench, cannot be taken as ratio decidendi of the
said decision.
13. The second difficulty that we have is that certain
statutory provisions and certain Government Orders
were not placed before the Division Bench in
Punyamurthula Venkata Viswa Sundara Rao.
Section 2 (o) of the Chit Funds Act, 1982 defines the
word ―Registrar‖ to mean the Registrar of Chits
appointed under Section 61. Section 2 (o) goes
further to say that the word ―Registrar‖ would also
include an Additional, a Joint, a Deputy or an
Assistant Registrar‖ appointed under Section 61.
This definition was not noted by the Division Bench
24
VS,J
W.P.Nos.11618, 11621 &
11632 of 2018
in Punyamurthula Venkata Viswa Sundara Rao.
Section 61 of the Act speaks about the appointment
of the Registrar and other officers. Sub-section (1) of
Section 61 reads as follows:
―The State Government may, by notification in the
Official Gazette, appoint a Registrar of Chits and as
many Additional, Joint, Deputy and Assistant
Registrars as may be necessary for the purpose of
discharging the duties imposed upon the Registrar
by or under this Act. ‖
14. Section 61 (1) has two limbs. Under the first limb,
the State Government is empowered to appoint a
Registrar of Chits by a notification in the Official
Gazette. By the second limb, the State Government
is empowered to appoint as many Additional, Joint,
Deputy and Assistant Registrars, for the purpose of
discharging the duties imposed upon the Registrar
by or under the Act. Therefore, it is clear that there
was power of delegation available for the State
Government to appoint Additional, Joint, Deputy and
Assistant Registrars for the purpose of discharging
the duties imposed upon the Registrar by or under
the Act.
15. Section 66 of the Act speaks about the
settlement of disputes. Under sub-section (1) of
Section 66, the Registrar is entitled to settle any
dispute either by himself or refer the dispute for
disposal to a person appointed by him. The person
to whom the Registrar refers the dispute for disposal
is called as ―the nominee‖. Sub-section (1) of Section
66 reads as follows:
―If the Registrar is satisfied that any matter referred
to him or brought to his notice is a dispute within the
meaning of section 64, he shall, subject to such rules
as may be prescribed, settle the dispute himself, or
refer it for disposal to a person appointed by him
25
VS,J
W.P.Nos.11618, 11621 &
11632 of 2018
(hereinafter in this Chapter referred to as the
nominee.)‖
16. Where the petitioner has actually fallen into a
trap is to mix up the power of delegation available
under Section 61 (1) with the power of nomination
available under Section 66 (1). The power of
delegation under Section 61 (1) is available only with
the Government, whereas the power of nomination
merely to decide a dispute, is with the Registrar
under Section 66 (1). Secondly, the delegation under
Section 61 (1) is only upon Additional, Joint, Deputy
or Assistant Registrars. But a nomination under
Section 66 (1) could be upon any person. Thirdly,
the delegation under Section 61 (1) is of all the
duties imposed upon the Registrar. On the contrary,
the nomination under Section 66 (1) is only for
settling a dispute. Fourthly, the delegation under
Section 61 (1) can be ordered only by a notification
issued in the Official Gazette. But the nomination
under Section 66 (1) cannot be and need not be by
publication in the Official Gazette.
17. Unfortunately, the Division Bench in paragraph
18 of the report in Punyamurthula Venkata Viswa
Sundara Rao has mistaken the power of nomination
available to the Registrar under Section 66 (1) to be
a power of delegation. The meaning to be assigned
to the word ―Registrar‖ appearing in Rule 55 (3), was
not considered by the Division Bench in
Punyamurthula Venkata Viswa Sundara Rao.
18. Rule 55 (3) of the Rules reads as follows:
―(3) On receipt of such application for execution, the
Registrar shall forward the same to the proper
authority for execution along with a certificate issued
by him under section 71 of the said Act and a
proclamation issued under rule 54 in the manner
prescribed therein.‖
26
VS,J
W.P.Nos.11618, 11621 &
11632 of 2018
19. The Chit Fund Rules, 2008 do not define the
word ―Registrar‖. The definition part of the Rules
contains only five words and expressions. After
defining five words and expressions in Rule 2, it is
stated in Rule 2 itself that the words and expressions
not defined in the Rules shall have the same
meaning as assigned to them in the Act. Therefore,
the word ―Registrar‖ appearing in Rule 55 (3) has to
be interpreted in the same manner as is defined in
Section 2 (o) of the Chit Funds Act, 1982. If this is
done, it will be clear that any Additional, Joint,
Deputy or Assistant Registrar to whom a delegation
has been made under Section 61 (1) will be entitled
under Rule 55 (3) to issue a certificate of recovery. If
the Government, by a notification in the official
Gazette, issued under section 61(1), can appoint a
Deputy Registrar or Assistant Registrar to perform all
the duties of the post of Registrar, he becomes
empowered automatically to issue a certificate of
recovery under rule 55 also. The expression used in
section 61 (1) is ―all the duties‖.
20.Unfortunately,---(i) the distinction between
delegation under Section 61 (1) and nomination
under Section 66 (1); (ii) the definition of the
expression ―Registrar‖ under Section 2 (o); (iii) the
interpretation to be given to the word ―Registrar‖ in
Rule 55 (3) read with the definition clause in Rule 2
of the Rules; and (iv) the availability of the Gazette
notifications containing delegation of powers, were
all not placed before the Division Bench, which
decided Punyamurthula Venkata Viswa Sundara
Rao. Hence, the decision in Punyamurthula Venkata
Viswa Sundara Rao cannot be taken to be an
authoritative pronouncement on the question as to
who is competent to issue a certificate of recovery.
21. Section 71 of the Act deals with the procedure
for recovery of money. It reads as follows:
27
VS,J
W.P.Nos.11618, 11621 &
11632 of 2018
―71. Money how recovered.—Every order passed by
the Registrar or the nominee under section 68 or
section 69 and every order passed by the State
Government in appeal under section 70 for payment
of any money shall, if not carried out, — (a) on a
certificate issued by the Registrar, be deemed to be
a decree of a civil court, and shall be executed in the
same manner as a decree of such court, or
(b) be executed in accordance with the provisions of
any law for the time being in force for the recovery of
amounts as arrears of land revenue:
Provided that no application for execution under
clause (b) shall be made after the expiry of three
years from the date fixed in the order, and if no such
date is fixed, from the date of the order.‖
22. Clause (a) of Section 71 speaks about a
certificate issued by the Registrar. The word
―Registrar‖ appearing in Section 71 (a) has also to
be given the same meaning as found in Section 2
(o). Therefore, we hold that if any Additional, Joint,
Deputy or Assistant Registrar has been appointed by
the State Government, by a notification in the official
gazette, to perform all the duties dischargeable by
the Registrar under the Act, then such a delegate will
be competent to issue a certificate of recovery. It is
not correct to say that the Registrar of Chits alone is
competent to issue a certificate of recovery.
23. Once the law on the issue is settled, the dispute
on hand can be resolved by looking into the
availability of any order issued by the Government
under Section 61 (1). The learned counsel for the 1st
respondent produced the copies of two Gazette
Notifications, one from the State of Andhra Pradesh
and another from the State of Telangana.
G.O.Ms.No.1472, Revenue (Regn.II), dated 10-12-
2008 issued by the State of Andhra Pradesh in
28
VS,J
W.P.Nos.11618, 11621 &
11632 of 2018
exercise of the powers conferred by Section 61 (1) of
the Chit Funds Act, 1982 reads as follows:
―In exercise of the powers conferred by sub-section
(1) of Section 61 of the Chit Funds Act, 1982
(Central Act 40 of 1982) the Governor of Andhra
Pradesh hereby appoints the Commissioner and
Inspector General of Registration and Stamps, A.P.,
Hyderabad as Registrar of Chits, the Additional
Inspector General-I, Office of the Commissioner and
Inspector General of Registration and Stamps, A.P.,
Hyderabad as Additional Registrar of Chits, the Joint
Inspector General-I, Office of the Commissioner and
Inspector General of Registration and Stamps, and
the Deputy Inspector General of their respective
zones as Joint Registrars of Chits, the Assistant
Inspector General (Chits) Office of the
Commissioner and Inspector General of Registration
and Stamps and the District Registrars of
Registration Districts in the State of Andhra Pradesh
as Deputy Registrars of Chits and the Chit
Registrars as Assistant Registrars of Chits within the
limits of their respective jurisdiction for the purpose
of discharging the duties imposed upon the Registrar
by or under the said Act as the case may be.‖
24. In so far as the State of Telangana is concerned,
the Government issued G.O.Ms.No.260 Revenue
(Registration-I), dated 11-10-2016, appointing
several officers as officers empowered to discharge
the duties imposed upon the Registrar by or under
the Act. This Government Order was published in
the Government Official Gazette extraordinary
bearing No.379-D published on 11-10-2016.
25. It must be noted that Section 61 (1) carefully
uses the phrase ―the duties imposed upon the
Registrar by or under the said Act‖. The duties
enumerated in the Act are those imposed by the Act.
The duties enumerated in the Rules are those
29
VS,J
W.P.Nos.11618, 11621 &
11632 of 2018
imposed under the Act. Therefore, Rule 55 (3) has to
be read only in this manner and not in any other
manner.
26. Thus, it is clear that the only contention raised by
the petitioner based upon the judgment of this Court
in Punyamurthula Venkata Viswa Sundara Rao is
bound to fail. Accordingly, it fails, and the Civil
Revision Petition is dismissed. There shall be no
order as to costs.
17. Therefore, the Additional, Joint, Deputy or Assistant Registrar
appointed by the State Government, by a Notification in the Official Gazette,
are competent to perform all the duties dischargeable by the Registrar under
the Act and that any one of such delegates is competent to issue such
certificate of recovery. Hence, the contention of the petitioner that the 3
rd
respondent is not competent to issue the certificate needs no countenance
being devoid of merit.
POINT No:2
18. Learned counsel for the petitioner also contended that award in
dispute No.25 of 2013 and as well as the recovery certificate under Section
71(A) of the act, were passed on the very same day i.e., 21.03.2014 and the
order or award shall be communicated to the person liable to carry out the
same and then only, on failure to pay the amount, a certificate ought to be
issued by the authority and only then such decree shall be deemed as a
decree of a civil Court. In this regard, it would be appropriate to refer to Rule
55 of the A.P. Chit Funds Rules, 2008, which read as under:
30
VS,J
W.P.Nos.11618, 11621 &
11632 of 2018
‗55. Procedure for execution of awards: -
(1) Every order or award passed by the Registrar, or
his nominee under Section 68 or 69 of the said Act,
1982, shall be forwarded by the Registrar to the
foreman or to the party concerned with instructions
that the foreman or, as the case may be, the party
concerned should initiate execution proceedings
forthwith according to the provisions of Section 71 of
the said Act.
(2) If the amount due under the award is not
forthwith recovered, or the order thereunder is not
carried out, it shall be forwarded to the Registrar with
an application for execution along with all information
required by the Registrar, for the issue of certificate
under Section 71 of the said Act. The applicant shall
state whether he desires to get it execute the award
through a civil Court or through the revenue
authorities as provided under Section 71 of the said
Act.
(3) On receipt of such application for execution,
the Registrar shall forward the same to the proper
authority for execution along with a certificate issued
by him under Section 71 of the said Act and a
proclamation issued under Rule 54 in the manner
prescribed therein.
(4) Every order passed in appeal under Section 70 of
the said Act shall also be executed in the manner
laid down in sub-rules (2) and (3).‘
19. As per this provision, the award or order shall be forwarded to the
foreman of the Chit Fund Company to initiate execution proceedings forthwith
according to Section 71 of the Act and that in the event, the amount due under
the Award is not forthwith recovered and the order thereunder is not carried
out under sub Rule (2) of Rule 55, the award or order shall be forwarded to
31
VS,J
W.P.Nos.11618, 11621 &
11632 of 2018
the Registrar with an application for execution along with all information for
issuance of certificate under Section 61 of the said Act. In the application, the
applicant shall state whether he desires to execute the award through a civil
Court or through the revenue authorities as provided under Section 71 of the
Act. On receipt of the application, the Registrar shall forward the same to
proper authorities for execution along with a certificate issued under Section
71 of the Act and proclamation issued under Rule 54 of the Rules in the
manner prescribed thereunder. As per the said Section, if the order or award
passed is not carried out, on a certificate issued by the Registry, every such
order/Award be deemed to be a decree of Civil Court and shall be executed in
the same manner as a decree of such Court.
20. A conjoint reading and harmonious consideration of the
provisions of law referred to supra would indicate that the 4
th
respondent is
competent to initiate execution proceedings forthwith according to the
provision of Section 71 of the Act. As per Section 71, as already noted, when
the Registrar issues a recovery certificate based on an order/award passed,
such certificate shall be deemed to be a decree of Civil Court and shall be
executed in the same manner as a decree of such Court. In the present case,
a perusal of the certificate dated 21.03.2014 issued under Section 71 of the
Act by the 3
rd
respondent indicates that 4
th
respondent has applied for transfer
of the award to the Civil Court for execution and the same has been forwarded
32
VS,J
W.P.Nos.11618, 11621 &
11632 of 2018
to the said Court. The copy of the petition filed in the writ affidavit bearing
E.P.No.97 of 2014 in dispute No.25 of 2013 discloses in column No.8 that the
award was transferred from the Chit Registrar, Narasaraopet, as per the
orders dated 01.04.2014. Thus, it is clear that the 4
th
respondent has duly
followed the procedure contemplated under Rule 55 of the Rules, 2008 and
Section 71 of the Act, 1982. Therefore, contention of the petitioners is
untenable and the writ petition is liable to be dismissed.
21. In view of the detailed discussion in W.P.No.11618 of 2018,
W.P.Nos.11621 and 11632 of 2018 are also liable to be dismissed.
22. In the result, these writ petitions are dismissed. There shall be no
order as to costs.
Consequently, Miscellaneous Petitions, if any, pending in these
Petitions shall stand closed.
_____________________
JUSTICE V.SUJATHA
Date:16.10.2026
Gss
Whether the order is :
Speaking Yes
Reportable No
Login with google
Legal Notes
Add a Note....