1. Being aggrieved by the order made in Ar.O.P.No.20 of 2011 dated 04.08.2012, rejecting an application filed under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, to set aside the award passed by Chits Arbitrator Deputy Registrar of Chits, Namakkal in AOP.No.26 of 2010 dated 23.07.2010, the present civil revision petition has been filed.

2. Material on record discloses that Sriram Chits Tamilnadu (Private) Limited conducted a chit transaction for Rs.25 lakhs. The chit number was 37/2007 and the chit agreement was No.30/2007. The group number was 91002. Monthly installment of sum of Rs.62,500/- for 40 installments, amounting to Rs.25 lakhs, is the periodical payment. The revision petitioner, has taken chit in auction at 8th installment, held on 21.01.2008, for a sum of Rs.15 lakhs, with a rebate of Rs.10 lakhs. He has repaid the chit amount for about 14 installments. Thereafter, the petitioner has committed default. Hence, under the Chit Funds Act, 1982, the matter has been referred to the Deputy Registrar of Chits. Notice has been issued to the petitioner. He has appeared and admitted that only Rs.10 lakhs has been paid. Based on the admission made by the petitioner, the Deputy Registrar of Chits by order dated 23.07.2010 in AOP No.26 of 2010, passed an award for Rs.6,25,000/-, the outstanding principal amount. A sum of Rs.65,000/- has to be paid as interest. Hence, he has passed an award for Rs.6,90,000/-.

3. Being aggrieved by the same, the defaulter has preferred an appeal before the learned Principal District Judge, Namakkal, under section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 to set aside the award passed by the Deputy Registrar of Chits, Namakkal passed in A.O.P.No.26/2010 dated 23.07.2010. The Registry of the District court has numbered the petition as A.O.P.No.20/2011. As against the numbering, the representative of Sriram chits Tamilnadu (Private Limited), Namakkal branch has filed a memo stating that since an award relating to the chit transaction has been passed under the provisions of the Chit Funds Act, 1982, the appeal preferred under section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, is not maintainable. He has also contended that an appeal remedy has to be preferred under section 70 of the Chit Funds Act, and the appeal preferred under section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, is not maintainable. After considering the abovesaid contentions and also taking note of a letter issued by the Deputy Secretary to the Government, commercial taxes and Registration (G)Department, Chennai in Letter No.13154/G/2011-2 dated 14.10.2011, the learned Principal District Judge, Namakkal, has rejected the appeal preferred under section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, as not maintainable. Being aggrieved by the same, the present revision petition has been filed.

4. Inviting the attention of this Court to Sub Section 4 of Section 2 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, Mr.R.Satheeshkumar, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that as per the abovesaid section, the arbitration under the Chit Funds Act, ought to have been construed as an statutory proceedings under the Act 1996, and that therefore, any person aggrieved by an award, can prefer an appeal under section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, to set aside the award.

5. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submitted that the court below ought to have seen that Section 74 of Chit Funds Act, provides only an appeal remedy and that the provision does not contain anything, to question the validity of an improper arbitration proceedings. Hence, he has prayed to set aside the impugned order and sought for a direction, to restore Ar.O.P.No.20/2011, to the file of the learned Principal District Judge, Namakkal, for passing orders on merits.

6. The Caveator is on record.

7. To advert to the contentions, this Court deems it fit to consider the objects and reasons of the Chit Funds Act, 19