The Co-operative Credit Society of Arungunam Village vs Chinnaswami Udayan

Cornish, J.—The appellant is the Co-operative Credit Society of Arungunam, It obtained an award under the provisions of the Co-

operative societies Act against true respondent for a sum of money. The award was made on 30th January, 1928. The application to enforce the

award was made by the Registrar of Co-operative Societies to the Court on 15th January, 1932. The only question in this appeal is whether the

application is time barred. Admittedly it is if Article 181 of the Limitation Act governs it. But the argument is that the application not being one

under the Civil Procedure Code, the Limitation Act has no application. The application to enforce the award was made in accordance with the

procedure laid down by Rule 14(5) of the Statutory Rules which have been framed under the Co-operative Societies Act. The particular course

taken by the Registrar in the present case was under Rule 14(5)(b)lfwhich says:

On application to the Civil Court having jurisdiction over the subject-matter of the decision or award that Court shall enforce the decision or award

as if it were a decree of the Court.

It is clear that the application is made to the Court to exercise its functions as a Court. But the argument is that admitting that the application is

made to the Court, it is not an application made to the Court under the Civil Procedure Code, but is an application made under the provisions of

the Co-operative Societies Act. There is no doubt upon the case-law that Article 181 of the Limitation Act only relates to applications under the

Code. But if these cases are examined they refer to applications to the Court to order something which the Court has no power to order or to do

under the Civil Procedure Code, for example, an application for probate to the Court under the Probate and Administration Act Manek Bai v.

Manekji Kavasji ILR (1880) 7 Bom. 213 or for an order under the special rules of the High Court for recovery of costs by a Solicitor Wadia,

Gandhy & Co. v. Purshotam ILR (1907) 32 Bom. 1 or an application by a liquidator u/s 186 of the Indian Companies Act for an order upon

contributories of the company to pay debts Hansraj Gupta v. Official Liquidators Dehra Dun-Mussoorie E.T. Co., Ltd. (1932) 64 M.L.J. 403 :

L.R. 60 IndAp 13 ILR 54 All. 1067 . In each of these instances the remedy given by a particular Act is enforceable in the manner provided by that

Act and not by the machinery of the Civil Procedure Code. In the present case the application is to the Court to exercise its execution jurisdiction

as if the award was a decree. I think that means that it is to be executed in the same manner as decrees are executed under the Code. In fact a

Court has no other power than that which is conferred upon it by the Code to put its execution machinery in ''motion. In my judgment this case is

hardly distinguishable from Sambasiva Mudaliar v. Panchanada Pillai (1907) 17 M.L.J. 441 : ILR 31 Mad. 24. There an application was made in

pursuance of Section 40 of the Revenue Recovery Act which provides that on production of a sale certificate by the purchaser the Court shall

cause a proper process to be issued for the purpose of putting such purchaser in possession in the same manner as if the purchased lands had been

decreed to him by a decree of the Court. The same argument was raised there as here that the application was not one made under the Civil

Procedure Code. But it was held that inasmuch as the application to the Court was to put in motion the machinery of the Code it was an

application under the Code. This reasoning seems to be decisive of the present appeal. The appeal accordingly fails and is dismissed with costs.