The provisions of the Central Chit Funds Act, 1982, do not apply to chit transactions that were pending on the date of commencement of the Act, as the saving clause in Section 6 of the General Clauses Act, 1897, applies.

1. Two judgments in O.S. Nos.78 and 79 of 1991 rendered by the learned First Additional Sub Judge, Pondicherry on 12. 1992 disposing of the suits on the question of jurisdiction after trial, have been canvassed with regard to their correctness, legality and propriety in these two appeals by and on behalf of the plaintiff.

2. The plaintiff in both cases is the appellant, which is a limited company having its Head Office at Mayiladuthurai in Thanjavur District with several branches in the Union Territory of Pondicherry. The defendant in both the suits are subscribers to the respective chits referred to in the plaints and the bye-law relating to the suit chit was registered under the provisions of the Pondicherry Chit Funds Act. The first defendant in O.S. No.78 of 1991 appears to be the successful bidder in the auction held on 16. 1988 for the sum specified in the plaint and the defendants 2 and 3 stood as sureties for the repayment of future subscriptions regularly and the defendants executed a promissory note in favour of the plaintiff for a sum of Rs.2, 52, 390 agreeing to repay the same jointly and severally and security bond were also executed by other defendants. As such, in O.S. No.79 of 1991 the first defendant, by name, Mani was the successful bidder in the auction held on 112. 1986 and the second defendant by name, Dhanalatchumy stood as surety and both the defendants executed a promissory note in favour of the plaintiff corporation for a sum of Rs. 1, 94, 000 and the second defendant also executed a security bond. Since the first defendant in both the cases became defaulter in the payment of future subscription inspite of legal notice issued, the plaintiff had to file suits for the recovery of the balance amount claimed in the plaints.

3. The suits were resited by the defendants by contending inter alia among other grounds that the entire transaction had taken place at Mayiladuthurai and the suits were filed by the Managing Director and not by the Foreman of the company and so, the suits were not maintainable and the quantum of amount claimed in the suits as per the statement of accounts was also denied since the plaintiff had failed to give credit to the real payments made by and on behalf of the defendants. It was also contended that the plaintiff was not entitled to claim future subscriptions under Section 33(5) of the Act, since the defendants had already given property as security. With regard to the rate of interest also, the suits were resisted.

4. Upon the above pleadings and after hearing both the sides, the trial Court, since the pleadings taken in both the suits by and on behalf of the respective parties are identical in nature, settled the following common issues in both the suits:

1. Whether the suit filed by the Managing Director is not maintainable?

2. Whether the Court has no jurisdiction to try this suit in view of Section 64 of Chit Funds Act, 1982 and only an arbitration would lie before the Registrar of Arbitration?

3. Whether the defendants made number of payments which were not given credit to by the plaintiff?

4. Whether the plaintiff is not entitled to claim the suit amount?

5. To what relief the parties are entitled to?

5. The case records show that the trial in both the suits was taken up and consequently, the plaintiff examined one Nagarajan as P.W.1 through whom plaintiff’s side documents were marked. On the other hand, the defendant Mani was examined as D.W.1 and no document was marked on the side of the defendants.

6. Though five issues were settled for trial and evidence was recorded on that basis by and on behalf of the respective parties, the second issue in both the suits regarding the jurisdiction of the trial Court in view of Section 64 of Chit Funds Act, 1982 alone was taken into consideration by the learned trial Judge and the rest of the issues were left by the learned trial Judge unanswered and finally he returned the plaints in both the suits for repr