.Present: K. D. de Silva, J., and Sansoni, J.45
S. G. 90-—D. C. Gampaha, 73[Co-op.
Co-operative Societies Ordinance (Cap. 107)—Section 45 (2)—rAward made thereunder•—Application to execute it—Is there a time limit ?—Civil Procedure Code,8. 696*
Where application was made by a Co-operative Society on May 10, 1956,for the execution of an award given on July 29, 1950, in terms of section 45 (2)of the Co-operative Societies Ordinance—
Held, that the time limit of six months imposed by section 696 of the CivilProcedure Code for filing an award is not applicable to an award made interms of section 45 (2) of the Co-operative Societies Ordinance.
^APPEAL from an order of the District, Court, Gampaha,
J. Gooray, with E. B. Vannitamby, for the Petitioner-Appellant.No appearance for the Debtor-Respondent.
Cur. adv. miU.
August 8,1958. K. D. de Silva, J.—
This is an appeal from an order of the District Judge, Gampaha, dis-missing an application of a Co-operative Society for the execution of anaward dated July 20, 1950, made in its favour. The application forexecution was made on May 10,1956, by petition and affidavit by way ofsummary procedure. The learned Distriot Judge took the view that interms of section 606 of the Civil Procedure Code the award should havebeen filed in Court within six months of making, it. Apart from that,he held that there was such undue delay in applying for execution thatit would be an abuse of the procedural machinery of the Court to grantthe application. For these reasons he dismissed the application withcosts. The learned District Judge erred in holding that section 696 ofthe Civil Procedure Code was applicable to an award such as this whichis made in terms of section 45 (2) of the Co-operative Societies Ordinance(Cap. 107). In the case of Pinikahana, Kahaduwa Co-operative Society,Ltd. v. Herat))1 which was decided by a Bench of five Judges it was heldthat a Court had no alternative but to execute an award, regular on theface of it, as a decree of Court. It is not suggested that the award inquestion is not ex fade regular. In fairness to the learned District JudgeI must observe that the case I have referred to above was decided severalmonths after he made his order in this case. I would therefore set asidethe order of the learned District Judge and allow the appeal with costsand direct that the award be executed as a decree passed by a CivilCourt.
Sansoni, J.—I agree.
1 (1957) 59 N. L. S. 145.
Appeal allowed.