ORDER :

P. Krishna Bhat, J.

1. These petitions are filed under Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, calling in question the legality and validity of the orders dated 28.05.2018 passed in Execution Petition Nos. 22/2018, 24/2018, 26/2018 and 70/2016 by the learned Principal Civil Judge and I Additional JMFC, Ranebennur, returning the Execution Petitions filed by the petitioner herein (common in all CRPs) for want of jurisdiction.

2. There is no dispute about the fact that petitioner herein is a Foreman within the meaning of sub-Section (j) to Section 2 of the Chit Funds Act, 1982 (for short, hereinafter referred to as the Act). The petitioner initiated proceedings under Section 64 of the Act for holding arbitration for the purpose of recovery of amounts due from the respondent No. 1 who was the subscriber to the chit and respondent No. 2 who was the surety for the transaction. The nominee of the competent authority namely the Registrar, entered upon arbitration of the dispute and passed the awards dated 02.02.2018 directing the respondents herein to pay amount of Rs. 80,994/- in CRP No. 100053/2018, Rs. 1,22,563/- in CRP No. 100054/2018, Rs. 1,45,648/- in CRP No. 100055/2018 and by award dated 17.10.2016 directing the respondents herein to pay Rs. 18,357/- in CRP No. 100056/2018 jointly and severally with interest thereon at 16% per annum from the date of the award till the date of payment with cost of Rs. 2,500/- in CRP No. 100053/2018, Rs. 3,000/- in CRP No. 100054/2018 and 100055/2018 and Rs. 1,500/- in CRP No. 100056/2018. Pursuant to the same, certificates came to be issued under Section 71(a) of the Act as contemplated under the Act. The petitioner filed execution petitions before the learned Principal Civil Judge at Ranebennur in Execution Petition Nos. 22/2018, 24/2018, 26/2018 and 70/2016 respectively by producing the certificates. Learned Court below by impugned orders dated 28.05.2018 has held that the said Court has no jurisdiction to entertain the Execution Petitions, in as much as, the certificate issued by the competent authority on the award passed was not forwarded by the Registrar himself, but it was filed into the Executing Court by the petitioner himself. Accordingly, learned Court below has directed the petitions to be returned with all documents to the petitioner or his counsel.

3. Calling in question the validity of the impugned orders, learned counsel Miss V. Vidya submits that learned Court below has misapprehended the scope of Section 71 of the Act, in as much as, once the award is passed and certificate is issued, the certificate can be put into execution before a trial Court by the party in whose favour award has been passed or he can seek for issue of certificate for initiating proceedings for recovery of the award amount as arrears of land revenue. She further submits that in these particular instances, the petitioner in whose favour the awards have been passed has chosen to file execution proceedings by filing into the Court below the certificate issued by the competent authority, and the learned Court below could not have returned the same on the ground that such certificates should have been forwarded by the Registrar himself and it is not competent for the party who is the beneficiary under the award to initiate execution proceedings himself. In support of the said contention she places reliance on a decision of this Court reported in ILR 2006 Kar 498 : (2005 AIR Kant. HCR 2869) (M/s. Shriram Chits (Bangalore) Ltd. v. Sri Panchakshari and another.

4. Respondents though served have remained unrepresented.

5. Perusal of the document produced along with these revision petitions shows that on a petition presented by the petitioner herein who is a Foreman within the meaning of sub-Section (j) of Section 2 of the Act, the nominee of the Registrar has entered upon arbitration and passed the awards as per Annexure 'C' dated 02.02.2018 in CRP No. 100053/2018, 100054/2018 and 100055/2018 and annex