- (1.) THIS is an appeal from an order of the Civil Judge Basti dated 29th October 1960, by which the learned Civil Judge dismissed objections filed under Section 47 of the Code of Civil Procedure by the judgment- debtor against the execution proceedings. An award was made under the provisions of Cooperative Societies Act, 1912 by arbitrator on 8th February 1955 against the judgment-debtor in favour of the respondent Society. The actual relief granted under the award was for recovery of certain amount of money by the respondent from the appellant.
(2.) IT appears that the award was sought to be enforced by issue of requisition to the Collector of the district of Basti who could recover the amount as arrears of land revenue within the meaning of Rule 137 framed under the aforesaid Act. Simultaneous with the aforesaid proceedings an application for enforcement of the award and for recovery of award amount was made in the Court of the Civil Judge, Basti purporting to be an application for execution as provided for by Rule 137, Sub-clause (2) framed under the aforesaid Act. That application had to be dismissed by the Civil Judge because he took the view that simultaneous proceedings for recovery of the amount awarded both through the Collector as well as in the Civil Court could not be taken. The Collector, however, failed to recover any part of the amount awarded and the proceedings before him therefore proved infruotuous. IT was then that the respondent filed the second application giving rise to the present appeal for the enforcement of the award in the Court of the Civil Judge, Basti. The judgment-debtor filed objections purporting to be under Section 47, C. P. C. and raised the plea that the application for execution was not maintainable inasmuch as the decree-holder had previously sought to recover the amount awarded through the Collector as arrears of land revenue: that an earlier application for execution in the Civil Court had also been dismissed, that the application for execution was barred by limitation and lastly that the decree was incapable of execution inasmuch as the arbitrator had no jurisdiction to make the award against the judgment-debtor The learned Civil Judge as referred to above dismissed the objection of the judgment-debtor and he has preferred the present appeal in this Court. The learned counsel for the appellant has urged before us that the article of Limitation Act applicable to such an application for execution was Article 181 and as the present application had not been filed within the period of three years as provided for under the said article, the application for execution is barred by time. In support of his submission, he has referred to Article 182 of the Limitation Act with a view to show that that article could not apply to such a case. According to him Article 182 of the Indian Limitation Act could apply in a case where the decree sought to be executed was a decree or order of a civil Court. In the instant case according to him, it is not a decree of the Civil Court which is being sought to be executed but an award by the arbitrator under the provisions of the Co-operative Societies Act.
(3.) RULE 137 framed under the aforesaid Act is as follows:-- "Award of arbitrators and decision of an Assistant Registrar may be enforced in either of the following ways: (i) On a requisition to the Collector of the district made by the Registrar, all sums recoverable under the award or decision shall be recovered as if they were arrears of land revenue, (ii) On application to the civil Court having jurisdiction over the subject-matter of the award or decision as if it were a decree of the Court." Under Sub-clause (ii) of the above noted rule, for purposes of execution in a civil Court, an award made under the provisions of the Cooperative Societies Act has been placed on the same footing as a decree of the Court. It follows that all the provisions relating to execution of a decree as contained in the Code of Civil Procedure would be applicable to the execution proceedings in respect of such an award Order XXI of the Code of Civil Procedure lays down different modes of execution in respect of different types of decrees. For instance, a decree for money has to be executed in the mode prescribed by RULE 30 of the said order by detention in civil prison of the judgment-debtor or by attachment and sale of his property, or by both; decree for specific movable property under RULE 31 is to be executed by the seisure, if practicable, of the movable or share, and by the delivery thereof to the party to whom it has been adjudged, or to such person as he appoints to receive delivery on his behalf, or by the detention in the civil prison of the judgment-debtor, or by the attachment of his property, or by both. Likewise, Rule 32 provides for the mode of execution of decree for specific performance and decree in respect of conjugal rights, or for an injunction. Rule 34 similarly provides the mode for execution of decree for execution of documents or endorsement of negotiable instrument. Rule 35 provides the mode of execution of a decree for immovable property. On an application for enforcement of such an award, the Civil Court has first to look to the nature of the relief granted under the award in order to decide the question whether the particular award has to be treated as a decree for money or recovery of movables or for recovery of immovables etc. If the relief granted under the award is for recovery of money the execution must proceed on the basis that the decree under the execution was a decree for money. Methods prescribed for the execution of decrees other than money decrees would not be made applicable in such a case. It is, therefore, obvious that the award must be treated as a decree for recovery of money and not a decree of any other type for the purpose of execution. The question then arises whether Article 182 will or will not cover such a case. Article 182 provides for the execution of a decree or order of a Civil Court not provided for by Article 183 or by Section 48 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908;