S.S. Sandhawalia, C.J.
1. This appeal under clause 10 of the Letters Patent is directed against the order of the learned Single Judge, dated August 11, 1975, whereby he dismissed the execution first appeal preferred by the appellant with costs.
2. Chhida Mal, appellant, stood surety for the repayment of a loan secured by the Palwal Shiam Oil ProductioncumSales Cooperative Industrial Society, Palwal, (of which he was a member also) from the Gurgaon Central Cooperative Bank Limited, Gurgaon. The Society aforesaid did not repay the loan above said and the consequent dispute between the Bank and the Society was referred by the Registrar to Shri D.S. Bhatia who gave the award against the Society and Chhida Mal to pay certain amounts on account of loan interest, costs, etc. to the Bank. On their failure to pay the said amount, the Bank took out execution of the award and since Chhida Mal, appellant, had pledged certain property belonging to him for the payment of the loan, the said property was attached at the instance of the Bank during the execution proceedings. Thereupon, the appellant raised objections under section 47 of the Code of Civil Procedure, which were contested by the Bank, and the following issues were settled :
(1) Where the reference to arbitrator was invalid ? O.P.D.
(2) Whether Registrar, Cooperative Societies was not competent to further refer the dispute to Shri D.S. Bhatia ?
(3) Whether this Court has no jurisdiction to try this case ?
(4) Whether the objections covered by issue No. 3 cannot be raised and entertained now ?
(5) Whether this award is not executable ?
(6) Whether this arbitrator has misconducted himself and the proceedings and to what effect ?
(7) Whether objection covered by issue No. 6 can be raised in this Court ?
(8) Relief.
Even before the executing Court, the appellant only contested issue No. 5 and consequently all the other issues were decided against him. Even as regards issue No. 5, the finding of the executing Court was categorically against him and his objections were consequently dismissed, whereupon he preferred the execution first appeal which also stands dismissed by the learned Single Judge.
3. As before the learned Single judge so before us the learned counsel for the appellant has attempted to assail the finding on issue No. 5 and the affirmance thereof. With his illimitable fairness, Mr. J.N. Kaushal, appearing for the appellant, has stated that the only point herein is whether the award rendered''s by itself a decree and, therefore, executable against the appellant. His stand was that it was not so, and it necessarily had to be made a rule of the Court to effectuate it.
4. We are unable to agree. There is no manner of doubt that the appellant was a surety to the loan transaction. Nor can it be disputed that as a surety his liability inevitably is coextensive with that of the principal debtor. What is, however, particularly noticeable is the fact that in the surety agreement the appellant had specifically subscribed to the following clauses :
"I do hereby further agree that any dispute between the said bank and the above mentioned Society of which I am a member, concerning the repayment of loan borrowed by the said Society from the said Bank on the security of my property pledged to the said Bank arises, that shall not form the subject of a regular suit in a Court of law, but shall be referred to the Registrar, Co operative Societies, Punjab, for arbitration and that the decision of the Registrar will be final and binding on me on behalf of the Society being the guarantor of the loan.
The Registrar may decide the dispute himself or may get it decided through his nominee as laid down in Section 56 of the Cooperative Societies Act."
It was in pursuance of the same that a reference of the subsequent dispute was made under sections 55 and 56 of the Punjab Cooperative Societies Act, 1961 to the Registrar. In deserves recalling that the appellant in an earlier appeal had challenged the reference and the award and D.K. Mahajan, J., categorically held that the arbitration proceedings were valid and the award was binding on the appellant. Once it is held that the award given against the appellant has a binding force, the rest necessarily flows from the statutory provisions of section 63(a) which is in the following terms :
"63. Every decision, award or order duly passed by the Registrar or arbitrator under sections 54, 55A, 56, 62 and 68 respectively, shall if not carried out,
(a) on a certificate signed by the Registrar, or any person authorised by him in this behalf, be deemed to be a decree of a civil Court and shall be executed in the same manner as decree of such court."
The bare language of these provisions leaves no manner of doubt that the award thereunder is executable as a decree. Therefore, it is idle to contend that herein also it would be necessary to have the award made a rule of the Court. The stand taken on behalf of the appellant appears to us as devoid of merit and has to be rejected.
5. Affirming the judgment of the learned Single Judge, we dismiss this appeal with costs. Counsel''s fee Rs. 200/ only.
