Sahakari Mitra Mandal vs Suryadatta

P.V. Dixit J

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 u/s 48, Civil Procedure Code. The objection was upheld by the Court of Small Causes, Indore. The learned Judge held that as under rule 20 of the Indore Co-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, CPC 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 vs. Imam Din, A. I. R. 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., Civil Procedure. Code, is applicable to an application under rule 20 of the Indore Co-operative 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, CPC 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. Civil Procedure Code, applicable to the execution of an award.

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 propria vigore executable by a civil Court in accordance with procedure prescribed in the Code of Civil Procedure. 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 CPC lays down the manner of executing a decree and one of the provisions is that an application in accordance with Order 21. rule 11, civil Procedure Code, has to be made to the Court having jurisdiction u/s 48, CPC 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, CPC 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 u/s 48, Civil Procedure Code. 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 CPC are applicable to an application for execution of a decree, will therefore apply to the execution of an award also under the Indore Co-operative Societies Act, when in the matter of execution it has been given under rule, 0 (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, Civil Procedure Code, ate 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, Civil Procedure Code, execution cannot be granted under that article. In my opinion, there can be no doubt about the applicability of section 48. Civil Procedure C ode 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 CPC about the execution of a decree including section 48, CPC would apply to an award in the matter of its execution.

I am fortified in the view I have taken by the decision of the Lahore High Court in Anjuman Imdad. Bahmi Qarza vs. Iman Din AIR 1947 Lah. 269. That was a ease in which the question arose whether section 48 CPC 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 CPC lays down the manner of executing a decree and one of the provisions of the CPC is that it can be executed at the outside within a period of twelve years subject to the limitations prescribed in Article 182, 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, CPC and not Article 181.

To the same effect is the decision in the S.V. Subha Rao vs. The Calicut Co-operative Urban Bank Ltd. AIR 1940 Mad. 635 . In Belvedere Jute Mills Ltd., Chaitram Sagormull Vs. Hardwarimull and Co., and Nadirshaw H. Contractor Vs. Gajraj Sheokarandas, 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 mariner 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.

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