Plaintiffs in O.S.Nos.1062/92 and 1056/92 on the file of the IInd Additional Sub Court, Thrissur are the appellants in these appeals. Plaintiff in both suit is same Kuri Company. Defendants 1 and 2 in both suits are also same persons. Both suits are for realisation of money. The trial court held that the suit is not maintainable and that the said court has no jurisdiction to try the suit and further held on merits that the plaintiff is not entitled to realise the amount claimed in the plaint. Aggrieved by the decree and judgment, the plaintiffs have preferred these appeals.

2. The facts in both suits are same. The lst defendant in both cases had joined one ticket in the monthly kuri conducted by the Bangalore Branch of the plaintiff-Company from 8/2/1988. The lst defendant in both suits had bid the kuri at the auction. The kuri amount was subsequently paid to the lst defendant in the suits on executing a kuri security bond on 6/9/1988 assuring the payment of future kuri subscriptions. It is averred that later the defendants committed default of payment of kuri subscriptions from the month of October 1989. The plaintiff issued notice to the defendants demanding the amount due under the kuri transaction, but no reply was sent. The other defendants are guarantors. O.S.Nos.1056/92 and 1062/92 were filed for realisation of Rs.36, 627/- and Rs.36, 642/- with interest and costs.

3. The defendants filed separate written statements in the suits. The 2nd defendant in O.S.No.1062/92 filed a written statement, the 2nd defendant adopted the contentions contained in the written statement filed by the lst defendant and the 3rd respondent remains ex parte. The gist of the contentions of the contesting defendants is that since the kuri was commenced and conducted in the State of Karnataka by the Bangalore Branch of the plaintiff Company, the Chit Funds Act, 1982 (hereinafter referred as 'the Act') is applicable, that the dispute is touching the management of a chit business as envisaged under Section 64 (1) of the Act and therefore, the dispute shall be referred to the Registrar for arbitration as per Section 64(1) and Section 33 of the Act. It is also pleaded that Section 64(2) and 64(3) ousted jurisdiction of the civil court to try the suit and therefore, the suit is not maintainable. It is also contended that the bond is executed at St. Thomas College, Pala in Meenachil Taluk and that no cause of action arises at Thrissur. Therefore, the civil court at Thrissur has no jurisdiction to take cognizance of the dispute.

4. The evidence in the case consists of the oral testimony of PW-1 and Exts.A1 to A12. The defendants did not tender any evidence both oral and documentary.

5. The kuri was conduced in the State of Karnataka by the Bangalore Branch of the plaintiff-Company from 8/7/1988. The Chit Fund Act, 1982 came into force in the State of Karnataka on 2/1/1984. Section 4 of the Act mandates that no chit shall be commenced or conducted without obtaining the previous sanction of the State Government, within whose jurisdiction the chit is to be commenced or conducted or of such officer as may be empowered by that Government in this behalf, and unless the chit is registered in that State in accordance with the provisions of the Act. On that basis the defendants contended that the claim for realisation of money due under the chit is a dispute touching the management of the chit business under Section 64(1) of the Act and therefore such dispute is to be referred to the Registrar for arbitration as per the said provisions of the Act. It is also contended that the jurisdiction of the civil court to entertain the suit of this nature is expressly barred by Section 64(3) of the Act.

6. Section 64 (1) of the Act mandates that any dispute touching the management of a chit business shall be referred to by any of the parties to the dispute to the Registrar for arbitration and Section 64(3) bars the jurisdiction of the civil court to entertain any