In this appeal brought at the instance of the plaintiff from the judgment and decree of Additional Sub Court, Ernakulam question for a decision is whether that court has jurisdiction to try the suit. Learned Sub Judge held that in view of Section 64 of the Central Chit Funds Act, 1982 (for short, "the Act") that court has no jurisdiction and consequently dismissed the suit.

2. Appellant-plaintiff claimed that it had started a Kuri from its branch at Bangalore. Respondent-defendant No.1 joined that Kuri and prized it on 3.4.1988. He received the amount and executed agreement along with respondents 2 and 3 undertaking to pay the future instalments without default. As per that agreement, respondents were liable to pay interest at the rate of 12% per annum in case of default in payment of future instalments. Alleging that respondent No.1 defaulted payment from 3.8.1992 onwards appellant laid the suit in the Second Additional Sub Court, Ernakulam for recovery of future instalments with interest. Respondents contended inter alia, that the court has no jurisdiction to try the suit in view of Sec.64 of the Act. Learned Sub Judge accepted that contention and dismissed the suit.

3. Section 64(1) the Act states that notwithstanding anything contained in any other law for the time being in force, any dispute touching the management of chit business shall be referred by any of the parties to the dispute, to the Registrar for arbitration. It is not disputed before me that the claim made by the appellant against the respondents in this case falls within the expression "dispute touching the management of a chit business" as stated in the explanation to Sec.64(1). Section 64(3) states that no civil court shall have jurisdiction to entertain any suit or other proceedings in respect of any dispute referred to in sub-sec.(1).

4. It is contended by learned counsel for appellant that the view taken by the learned Sub Judge is not correct. According to the learned counsel, Kuri was started (at Bangalore) at a time when the enforcement of the Act in the State of Karnataka was stayed by the High Court of Karnataka at the instance of the appellant and hence Sec.85 of the Act would come into operation. Another contention raised is that the Act is not extended to the State of Kerala by Notification as required by Sec.1(3) of the Act and hence, since part of cause of action for the suit has arisen within the territorial jurisdiction of the court below the suit is perfectly maintainable in the that court. Learned counsel for respondents contended that the Act applies to every Kuri started at Bangalore and hence recovery of the amount can only be in accordance with the provisions of the Act.

5. The Act was brought into force in the State of Karnataka by Notification with effect from 2.1.1984. Appellant filed Writ Petition in the High Court of Karnataka in the year 1986 challenging enforcement of the Act in that State. The High Court granted stay of enforcement of the Act in that State on 10.11.1986. That order of stay was in force till 29.4.1988. The Writ Petition was dismissed and the stay was vacated on 29.4.1988. Though the exact date of commencement of the Kuri from Bangalore is not pleaded in the plaint, there is sufficient indication that it was before the Writ Petition was dismissed on 29.4.1988. For, it is stated in the plaint that respondent No.1 prized the Kuri on 3.4.1988. Hence the Kuri must have been started prior to 3.4.1988. To be short, the Kuri was started at Bangalore at a time when the interim stay granted in the Writ Petition was in force. 6. As per Sec.85(a), the Act has no application to any chit started before the commencement of the Act. Argument of learned counsel is that though by Notification the provisions of the Act was extended to the State of Karnataka with effect from 2.1.1984, so far as the Kuri started by the appellant is concerned it must be taken that the Act came into force only on 29.4.1988 when the High Court