The main legal point established in the judgment is that the award of the Registrar of Cooperative Societies is given the same status as a decree of a Civil Court for the limited purpose of execution, and the provisions of law relating to the enforcement of decrees of such Courts, including the law of limitation, will apply by necessary implication.

Venkataramana Rao, J.

1. The question raised in this appeal is as to the proper article of the Limitation Act for an application for the enforcement of an award passed by the Registrar of Cooperative Societies under Section 51 of the Act.

2. The execution application in this case, out of which this appeal arises, was made in 1936 in respect of an award which was passed on 15th July, 1931. The first application for enforcement of the award made to the District Munsiff of Calicut was made in 1932 and between 1932 and 1936 there were other applications made for its enforcement. It is conceded that if Article 182 of the Limitation Act applies, there is no bar of limitation. Both the lower Courts have taken the view that Article 182 is applicable and held that the application is not barred by limitation. But it is contended by Mr. Sesha Aiyar that this view is wrong and that the article applicable is Article 181 of the Limitation Act. He places considerable reliance on the decision of Cornish, J., in the Co-operative Credit Society v. Chinnaswami Udayan AIR1937Mad31 . With due respect, I am unable to agree with the said decision. Under Section 65 of the Co-operative Societies Act, the Local Government is empowered to make rules to carry out all or any of the purposes of the Act and one of such purposes is the enforcement of decisions or awards in proceedings before the Registrar of Co-operative Societies. The rule which has been enacted in pursuance of this section is Rule 15, Clause 7. Clause 7 contains three sub-clauses providing three methods of enforcement and the sub-clause, which is relevant for the purpose of the present discussion, is Sub-clause (c) which runs thus:

On application to the Civil Court having jurisdiction over the subject-matter of the decision or award, that, Court shall enforce the decision or award as if it were a final decree of the Court.

3. If therefore an application to enforce an award is made to a Civil Court, for the purpose of enforcement the legislature enacts that it should be treated as a final decree of that Court. Thus by statute the award of the Registrar under Section 51 of the Act is given the same status as a decree of a Civil Court for the limited purpose of execution and the provisions of law relating to the enforcement of decrees of such Courts including the law of limitation applicable for such enforcement will apply-by necessary implication. So when the question of limitation arises as to the enforcement of an award of the Registrar of a Co-operative Society, the Court before which the application for its enforcement is made will have to apply the article applicable for the enforcement of the final decree of that Court. In this case, the article applicable for the enforcement of the final decree of the Court of the District Munsiff of Calicut is Article 182. Prima facie therefore the article that should govern the present case is Article 182. In Belvedere Jute Mills, Ltd., In re 31 C.W.N. 1097 a question arose as to the enforcement of an award under Section 15 of the Indian Arbitration Act where the language is almost similar. Section 15 runs thus:

An award on a submission, on being filed in the Court in accordance with the foregoing provisions, shall (unless the Court remits it to the reconsideration of the arbitrators or umpire, or sets it aside) be enforceable as if it were a decree of the Court.

4. Rankin, C.J., and Mitter, J., held that Article 181 would not apply to the case but the article applicable was Article 183, the article applicable to the enforcement of the decree of the High Court. Rankin, C.J., in the course of the judgment remarked thus:

If one looks at the question of limitation from the point of view of the different alternatives, there can be one inference only and that is that the words employed by the legislature in the first sub-section of Section 15 of the Indian Arbitration Act were intended to go to the question of limitation as well as to the question of p