Madras High Court
CRP/4190/2023 of B.A.JUDO RAMESH Vs MARGADARSI CHITS PRIVATE LTD on 8 October 2026
CRP Nos. 4190 and 4192 of 2023
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED: 08-10-2026
CORAM
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE S. SOUNTHAR
CRP Nos. 4190 and 4192 of 2023 and
CMP Nos.25514 and 25521 of 2023
CNR: {HCMA011969882023}
1. B.A.Judo Ramesh
S/o Anjaneyalu Naidu, Res at No.42, Ground Fllor, Muthuramalingam St, Rajaji Colony, Saligramam, Chennai 600 093.
2. Babitha
W/o B.A.Judo Ramesh, Res at No.42, Ground Fllor, Muthuramalingam St, Rajaji Colony, Saligramam, Chennai 600 093
..Petitioner(s)
Vs
Margadarsi Chits Private Ltd
Having office at No.AA 152, Third Avenue, Anna Nagar, Chennai 600 040
..Respondent(s)
Prayer in CRP No.4190 of 2023: Civil Revision Petition is filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India to set aside the order passed in EA.SR.No.
28336/2021 in EP.No. 2381/2015 in ARC.No. 2274 of 2005 by an order dated 12.07.2023 passed by the IX Asst. Judge, City Civil Court, Chennai by directing the courts below to number the above EASr and taken on file by allowing this Revision Petition.
Prayer in CRP No.4192 of 2023: Civil Revision Petition is filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India to set aside the order passed in EA.SR.No.
28339/2021 in EP.No. 2383/2015 in ARC.No. 2274 of 2005 by an order dated __________
( Uploaded on: 22/10/2026 12:40:06 pm )
CRP Nos. 4190 and 4192 of 2023
12.07.2023 passed by the IX Asst. Judge, City Civil Court, Chennai by directing the courts below to number the above EASr and taken on file by allowing this Revision Petition.
In both Civil Revision Petition
For Petitioner(s):
Mr. P.Srinivasan
For Respondent(s):
Mr. D.Shivakumaran
Citations and Judicial Treatment
Cited by
0
Decisions in the index citing it
Cites
0
Decisions referred to
In this index
0
Of the decisions it cites
Overruled / Questioned
0
No negative treatment found
Loading the citing and cited decisions…
This judgment in the centre: on the left the decisions it cites, on the right the decisions citing it. Colour is the treatment; choose a decision to open it.
COMMON ORDER
These civil revision petitions have been filed challenging the orders passed by the Trial Court, dismissing the applications filed by the petitioners/ judgment debtor under Section 47 of CPC.
2. The respondent herein obtained an Arbitration Award against the petitioners before the Arbitrator cum District Registrar of Chit Funds. The said Award obtained by the respondent has been put into execution in two separate execution petitions in E.P.No.2381 and 2383 of 2015. The 1st petitioner is the subscriber of the chit and the 2nd petitioner is the guarantor to the chit amount received by the 1st petitioner. The petitioners have filed applications under Section 47 of CPC seeking declaration that the Award is in-executable. The said applications were dismissed by the executing court. Aggrieved by the same, the present civil revision petitions have been filed. __________
( Uploaded on: 22/10/2026 12:40:06 pm )
CRP Nos. 4190 and 4192 of 2023
3. The learned counsel for the petitioners vehemently contended that the arbitration proceedings were initiated by the respondent, represented by its Manager not by a Foreman and therefore, the Award is a nullity. He further submitted that the execution petition has been filed nearly after 11 years from the date of award and therefore, in view of Section 71(b) of the Chit Funds Act, the execution petition is barred by law.
4. As far as the first contention raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the Arbitration Claim Petition was filed by the Manager of Chit Funds not by the Foreman is concerned, a perusal of the Award, available in the typed set of papers would indicate that the respondent Chit Fund Company was represented by its Foreman before the Arbitrator. Therefore, the said contention raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner is not acceptable to this court.
5. A perusal of Section 71 of Chit Funds Act would indicate that if the Award passed under the Chit Funds Act is sought to be executed by taking recourse to provision of the Revenue Recover Act, the limitation is 3 years. However, the said Section does not prescribe the limitation period for execution of the award before the regular civil court. Section 71(a) of the Chit Funds Act would indicate that the certificate issued by the Registrar is deemed to be a decree and shall be executable in the same manner as a decree of such court. __________
( Uploaded on: 22/10/2026 12:40:06 pm )
CRP Nos. 4190 and 4192 of 2023 Therefore, any Award passed by the Registrar is executable as a decree and hence, the regular period of limitation under the Limitation Act is applicable.
6. In the present case, the Award was passed on 28.08.2006 and the execution petitions were filed in the year 2015, well within 12 years. Therefore, the point raised by the learned counsel for the petitioners on the ground of limitation is also not acceptable to this court. It is also seen from the impugned order that earlier, the petitioners had filed an application under Section 47 of CPC in E.A.No.4467 of 2016 raising similar objections and the same was dismissed for default. In the light of the above discussion, this court is not inclined to interfere with the impugned order.
7. Accordingly, CRP Nos.4190 and 4192 of 2023 are dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. Connected miscellaneous petitions are closed. 08-10-2026 Index: Yes/No Speaking/Non-speaking order Neutral Citation: Yes/No MST __________
( Uploaded on: 22/10/2026 12:40:06 pm )
CRP Nos. 4190 and 4192 of 2023 To The IX Assistant Judge, City Civil Court, Chennai. __________
( Uploaded on: 22/10/2026 12:40:06 pm )
CRP Nos. 4190 and 4192 of 2023 S.SOUNTHAR, J. MST CRP Nos. 4190 and 4192 of 2023 08-10-2026 __________
( Uploaded on: 22/10/2026 12:40:06 pm )