The Chit Funds Act does not permit the condonation of delay in appeals under Section 70, and the Limitation Act is not applicable to such appeals.

JUDGMENT :

Heard Sri Mutyala Sobhanadri Naidu, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri Dilip Nayak K., AGP for Revenue for the respondents 1 to 3.

2. This writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India has been filed by the petitioner challenging the Order vide Letter No.REV01-REGSOACTS (CHIT)/49/2024-REGN.II, Dated 28.10.2024, informing the petitioner about the dismissal of her Appeal filed under Section 70 of the Chit Funds Act, 1982 as barred by limitation under the provisions of the said Act.

3. M/s.Margadarsi Chit Fund Private Limited, the 4^th respondent, filed an arbitration case against 6 persons, including the petitioner, under Section 64 of the Chit Funds Act, 1982, before the Deputy Registrar of Chits, Tenali for recovery of an amount of Rs.17,67,275/- along with interest and costs, which was numbered as D.I.S.(Dispute) No.32/2016. The 4^th respondent-M/s. Margadarsi Chit Fund Company was carrying on the chit fund business. One A. Prathyusha is the subscriber of the 4^th respondent Chit Fund Company having subscribed to Ticket No.40 in chit group, LT005D TL dated 27.03.2014. The chit amount was valued at Rs.25,00,000/-. The total months were 50 and the monthly installment was Rs.50,000/-. According to the 4^th respondent Chit Fund Company, A. Prathyusha participated in the chit auction on 29.03.2014 and became successful bidder having agreed to forego an amount of Rs.10,00,000/- and the bid amount of Rs.15,00,000/- was paid to her on14.06.2014. The petitioner stood as one of the guarantors to A. Prathyusha vide agreement dated 14.06.2014. According to the 4^th respondent, A. Prathyusha, subscriber, paid 18 installments and thereafter committed default from 16.09.2015 onwards, consequently, the Dispute No.32 of 2016 was filed. The petitioner did not appear in spite of the notice and was set ex parte. The 3^rd respondent-the Deputy Registrar of Chits, Tenali, thereafter passed an award dated 31.10.2017 under Section 69 of the Chit Funds Act, deciding that the 4^th respondent Chit Fund Company was entitled to recover an amount of Rs.17,67,275/- with interest @18% per annum on the principal amount of Rs.15,63,040/- from the date of filing the dispute till the date of realization.

4. The petitioner’s case is that the notice was not received and she was unaware of the Dispute proceedings. The 4^th respondent filed execution petition before the Principal Junior Civil Judge, Nellore in E.P.No.245 of 2019, and she came to know about the Order / Award in the year 2024 on receipt of summons in execution petition. She then filed Arbitration Original Petition (AOP) before the District Judge, Nellore against the order of the Deputy Registrar, which was returned as not maintainable. The petitioner thereafter filed appeal before the 1^st respondent-State of Andhra Pradesh, Department of Revenue (Registration & Stamps), under Section 70 of the Chit Funds Act along with interlocutory application seeking to condone the delay in filing the appeal and also to stay the operation of the order/award of the 3^rd respondent-Deputy Registrar. The appeal has been dismissed as not maintainable on the ground oflimitation that the appeal was barred by limitation, having been filed after two months from the date of the order or award.

5. Challenging the said order, the present writ petition has been filed.

6. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the appeal was barred by limitation. It was not filed within two months from the date of the order or award. Consequently, interlocutory application was filed seeking to condone the delay. However, the appellate authority has not considered the application for condonation of delay and dismissed the appeal as barred by limitation. He submitted that the provisions of the Limitation Act applies to an appeal filed under Section 70 of the Chit Funds Act in view of Section 29 (2) of the Indian Limitation Act. Consequently, the appellate authority ought to have considered the cause for delay and oug