This is the decree-holder's revision being aggrieved of the order passed in Ex. Case No. 130 of 2000 on the file of the II Additional Civil Judge (Senior Division), Mangalore, dated 2-2-2001 dismissing the execution petition as not maintainable.

2. The brief facts of the case are as follows.-

The petitioner M/s. Shriram Chits (Bangalore) Limited, Hampanakatte Branch, Mangalore is a Chit Company registered under the Chit Funds Act, 1982. The subscriber viz., the principal debtor Sri Shyam Bhandary of Uppinangady was a member of the Chit Fund and drawn the chit amount on the co-obligation of respondents Sri Panchakshari and Sri M.P.. Balakrishna Bhandary. The subscriber defaulted in payment of the' subscription due in accordance with the terms of the chit agreement. In respect of the recovery of the dues, the petitioner initiated proceedings as provided under Chapter XII of the Chit Funds Act, 1982, before the Development Officer, Bantwal, who is the nominee for adjudication of the disputes and an award came to be passed against the principal debtor and the sureties. The award appears to have been submitted to the Joint Registrar of Chits, Mysore Division, Mysore for certification as required under Section 71(a) of the Chit Funds Act, 1982. A certificate dated 10-1-2000 was issued by the Joint Registrar of Chits, Mysore Division, Mysore. 'The decree-holder presented an execution petition before the II Additional Civil Judge (Senior Division), Mangalore, for recovery of an amount of Rs. 52,016/from the judgment debtors and sought for attachment of salary of respondents 1 and 2. The learned Civil Judge issued warrant for attachment of salary of Rs. 1,500/- p.m. out of the salaries of the respondents.

3. The respondent having entered appearance filed LA. No. 2 under Section 151 of the Civil Procedure Code, 1908, to recall the order of salary attachment and also notice to garnishee to remit the salary. The learned Civil Judge after hearing both side Counsels rejected LA. No.2.It is thereafter the respondents filed objections questioning the jurisdiction of the executing Court. After hearing both side Counsels, the learned Civil Judge dismissed the execution petition as not maintainable. It is this order which is questioned in the present revision.

4. Learned Counsel Sri Sadashivappa contended that there is no dispute regarding the award being passed by the Development Officer of Bantwal, South Canara District. The parties therein also reside within the jurisdiction of the South Canara District and the award in question came to be certified by the Joint Registrar of Chits, Mysore Division, Mysore, by his order dated 10-1-2000 within whose jurisdiction the parties reside the transaction has taken place. Therefore, the execution petition came to be filed before the learned Civil Judge (Senior Division), who is competent to exercise jurisdiction for recovery of the amount. He has further submitted that Section 7l(a) of he Chit Funds Act, 1982 makes clear that on being issued a certificate by the Registrar or its nominee, is deemed to be a decree of the Civil Court and the same has to be executed in the same manner as the decree of such Court. Therefore, submitted that the impugned order is erroneous and not sustainable. Secondly, contended that even otherwise if there is any error of jurisdiction in entertaining the execution petition, that the learned Civil Judge ought to have returned the execution petition for being presented before the proper Court to proceed further which is not so. Therefore, on this count also the impugned order is not sustainable. Accordingly, prayed to set aside the impugned order by allowing the revision or in any case, to permit him to present the execution petition after its return. Learned Counsel thirdly, contended that the Joint Registrar of Chits, Mysore Division, Mysore, who issued certificate exercises jurisdiction over Mysore Division inclusive of the revenue districts of Mysore, Mangalore, Hassan, U