The court emphasized that the limitation issue under Sec.65 of the Chit Fund Act is a mixed question of law and fact, and the court cannot interfere with quasi-judicial functions.

The petitioner prays for issuance of a writ in the nature of Certiorari, to quash the proceedings before the respondent No.1,i.e. Arbitrator, Chennai Chit Fund Cases Court (Central), George Town, Chennai -1.

2. Sree Gokulam Chits & Finance Company Pvt. Ltd. has filed a claim petition No.A.C.R.No.1350 of 2010 before the learned Arbitrator against M/s.Ruchi Bhavan, through its Proprietor Mr.P.Kumar as also against the petitioner in the capacity of surety for the chit transaction in question.

3. In the Reference, it is pleaded, that one M/s.Ruchi Bhavan, a Proprietor concern of Mr.P.Kumar had joined chit group J2H 30, for the value of Rs.5 lakhs payable with amount of Rs.25,000/- (Rupees twenty five thousand only) per month for a period of 20 months.

4. M/s.Ruchi Bhavan had participated in the auction held on 03.12.2003. The petitioner has not impleaded M/s.Ruchi Bhavan as party as Mr.P.Kumar is stated to have died on 01.04.2010. No reason has been assigned, as to why legal heirs of Mr.P.Kumar have not been impleaded.

5. The respondent No.2 in the Reference claimed a sum of Rs.3,75,000/- (Rupees three lakhs seventy five thousand only) paid against promissory note, which was guaranteed by the petitioner. M/s.Ruchi Bhavan committed default in payment of monthly instalments which resulted in issuance of legal notice on 7.6.2010.

6. The claim was filed by the respondent No.2 in the year 2010, i.e. after 7 years claiming a sum of Rs.2,03,727/- (Rupees two lakhs three thousand seven hundred and twenty seven only) as due. The petitioner in response to the notice, appeared before the respondent No.1, and filed an application for supply of documents to enable him to file counter. The learned counsel for the petitioner states that documents were not furnished to the petitioner.

7. The submission of the petitioner is, that there is bias in the mind of the respondent No.1 being on the pay roll of the respondent No.2. The petitioner therefore, is not likely to get justice from the respondent No.1. The petitioner, subsequently filed counter raising preliminary objection with regard to maintainability of the claim petition and that the claim is barred by limitation. The case of the petitioner is that no decision on preliminary objection raised, has been taken by the respondent No.1.

8. The petitioner has challenged the pending proceedings, on the ground that claim filed is not competent being barred by limitation.

9. The contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner, is that as per Sec.65 of the Chit Fund Act, the limitation to initiate proceedings is three years from the date of actual cause of action. The maturity of the chit fund in this case was in the year 2003 whereas default was committed by M/s.Ruchi Bhavan in the year 2004 therefore, the petition filed in the year 2010 is barred by limitation.

10. In support of this contention, the learned counsel for the petitioner placed reliance on the judgment of the Hon'ble Division of this Court in Shri Nithya Kalyani Chit Funds (P) Ltd. vs. Govt. of Tamil Nadu, Commercial Taxes & Religious Endowment Department (2011(1)TLNJ 187 (Civil).

11. On consideration, I find no force in the contentions of the learned counsel for the petitioner.

12. The reading of the claim shows that specific averment has been made that the claim petition is within limitation.

13 The question of limitation is mixed question of law and fact. It is for the respondent No.2 to prove before the respondent No.1, as to how the claim filed is within limitation. It will also open to the petitioner to prove before the respondent No.1, that claim petition filed is beyond limitation and therefore liable to be dismissed as barred by limitation.

14. Keeping in view of the fact that under Sec.65 of the Chit Fund Act, it is open to the Registrar to condone the delay, it is not open to this Court to quash the proceedings at this stage. The petitioner has already submitted to the jurisdiction and has filed counter.