The ceiling of 3 years in Section 71(b) of the Chit Funds Act does not apply if the decree is treated as a civil court decree.

ORDER

The chit subscriber/ first judgment debtor is the revision petitioner, challenging the order in EP.No.46 of 2025 on the file of the XXVII Assistant City Civil Court, Chennai.

2.I have heard Mr.S.Vijayakumar, learned counsel for the revision petitioner and Mr. D. Shivakumaran, learned counsel for the first respondent / decree holder.

3.The learned counsel for the revision petitioner, Mr.S.Vijayakumar, would contend that there is a bar for the decree holder to claim the amount, beyond the period of 3 years and in this connection, he would rely on the bar under Section 71 (b) of the Chit Funds Act, 1982 . Secondly, he would contend that the decree holder had filed an earlier EP and he has suppressed the same, while filing the present EP. Thirdly, he would contend that the permission under Section 39 of the Code of Civil Procedure has not been obtained and lastly, referring to Rule 63 of the Chit Fund Rules, the learned counsel for the petitioner would contend that the respondent is not entitled to interest beyond 12 % per annum. The learned counsel for the petitioner would further state that the petitioner himself had subscribed to several other chits and he has already settled 5 chits at the rate of 6% per annum and therefore, he would state that the petitioner was certainly entitled to concessional interest. He would therefore pray for the revision being allowed.

4.Per contra. Mr.D.Shivakumaran, learned counsel appearing for the respondent/Chit Fund Company would state that the bar under Section 71 (b) will not apply, as the execution petition has been laid to execute the award, only treating it as a decree of civil Court and not as an arrear of land revenue. Insofar as limitation, he would state that once the decree can be executed as a civil Court, the EP filed within 12 years is very much in time. He would also state that the earlier EP, no doubt, filed before the Poonamallee Court had been dismissed for default, however, as long as the decree remains unsatisfied, the first respondent was entitled to take out a subsequent execution petition.

5.As regards reliance on Rule 63, Mr.D.Shivakumaran, learned counsel for the first respondent would state that the said rule would not even apply to the revision petitioner, as it is specifically made available to non-prized subscribers. He would further state that the petitioner had lodged a complaint before the Consumer Commission and made allegations against the officials of the first respondent and even obtained an award for compensation. Therefore, the first respondent cannot be expected to give any concession to the petitioner. The learned counsel for the 1^st respondent would also state that the said order of the Consumer Commission is also being appealed against. He would further state that the executing Court has rightly ordered the execution petition, after rejecting all the contentions advanced by the petitioner. He would therefore pray for dismissal of the revision petition.

6.I have carefully considered the submission advanced by the learned counsel on either side.

7.With regard to limitation and the bar under Section 71 (b) of the Chit Funds Act, 1982 , there are two modes of recovery of money to an award holder. He can either opt to treat the award as a decree of a civil Court and file a regular execution petition under (a). However, alternatively, he can treat it as an arrear of land revenue and make a claim under (b). of the the is extracted hereunder for easy reference:

“71. Money how recovered.— Every order passed by the Registrar