The main legal point established in the judgment is that the Decree passed by the Civil Court was not affected by the acquittal in the criminal case, and objections raised to delay the execution proceedings were not valid.

(PRAYER: Revision filed against the order dated 13.11.2001, made in E.A.No.353/2000 in E.P.No.60/1997 in O.S.No.209/1991 on the file of the District Munsif Court, Gingee.)

This Revision Petition arises out of the Order in E.A.No.353/2000 in E.P.No.60/1997 in O.S.No.209/1991 on the file of the District Munsif Court, Gingee, dismissing the Petition filed under Section 47 CPC. Defendants 5 and 6 are the Revision Petitioners.

2.1. Facts in nutshell are as follows :- The Respondent/ Plaintiff has filed the suit O.S.No.209/1991 claiming a sum of Rs.14,250/-. Case of the Plaintiff was that the Defendants 1 to 3 are Directors of 'Muthamizh Chit Funds and Financiers Private Ltd.', which were running chits, having its office at Gingee Town. The Defendants 5 and 6 approached the Plaintiff to subscribe for a chit and believing their words, the Plaintiff also joined in chit and subscribed for Rs.15,000/-. The said chit group was for a period of 13 months with a monthly subscription of Rs.500/- and the Plaintiff is said to have paid Rs.10,500/-. It is alleged that the Defendants 1 to 6 have not honoured their commitments and a criminal case was lodged in C.C.No.939/ 1989 against the Defendants 1 to 4.

2.2. Plaintiff has filed the suit O.S.No.209/1991, claiming Rs.14,250/-. Initially, the suit was filed as Pauper O.P.No.7/89 and the same was ordered to be instituted as a suit. In the suit, the Plaintiff also sought for creation of charge over the immovable properties of the Defendants 5 and 6. Even at the stage of suit, attachment was ordered. In the suit, Defendants 5 and 6 have filed Written Statement on 25.09.1991. Thereafter the Revision Petitioners/Defendants 5 and 6 did not pursue the suit and they were set exparte and exparte Decree was passed on 04.12.1991. Revision Petitioners filed I.A.No.834/2005 seeking condonation of delay in filing application to set aside the exparte Decree. That application was dismissed against which, CRP was filed and the CRP was also dismissed.

2.3. Plaintiff has filed Execution Petition No.60/1997 [E.P. filed even in the year 1994], for execution of the Decree by sale of immovable properties of the Revision Petitioners. The Revision Petitioners entered appearance in the Execution Proceedings also and filed their counter. Later, counsel for the Revision Petitioners reported 'no instructions'. Sale proclamation was ordered and at the stage, when the matter was adjourned for sale, Revision Petitioners have filed E.A.No.353/2000 under Section 47 CPC, interalia contending that the suit is not maintainable in view of the express bar under the Chit Funds Act and that according to the Revision Petitioners, they were acquitted in criminal case in respect of the transaction in reference and hence, prayed that the Decree cannot be executed against them or other immovable property.

2.4. Application under Section 47 CPC was dismissed by the Executing Court holding that the exparte Decree dated 04.12.1991 has become final. The Court has further observed that acquittal in criminal case would not render the Decree in-executable.

3.1. Assailing the impugned Order, the learned Counsel for the Revision Petitioner contended that the Revision Petitioners were only employed as employees in the chit fund and they cannot be held liable. It was further submitted that when the Chit fund Company is registered, only Registrar has control and under Section 64(3) of the Chit Funds Act, there is bar for invoking the jurisdiction of the Civil Court. It was further submitted that in the criminal complaint, commission of the offence has not been established and when the criminal case has ended in acquittal, the Decree cannot be executed.

3.2. Countering the arguments, the learned Counsel for the Respondent/Plaintiff has submitted that the Plaintiff has also filed Petition before the Registrar and the same was returned by the Registrar stating that Muthamizh Chit is not a registered one and only thereafter, the Plaintiff has filed th