Judgment :- 1. The short point for decision in this Second Appeal preferred by the decree-holders is whether the respondent (defendant 6) had forfeited his right to the benefit conferred by the Debt Relief Act by reason of default being made in the payment of three consecutive instalments. The dispute is whether the 8th instalment amount was paid in time. Two previous defaults (4th and 6th instalments) are admitted. 2. The 8th instalment fell due on 31.1.1121 which day happened to be a public holiday. On the next working day, i.e. on 1.2.1121 the respondent applied to the Court for a chalan being issued to him for depositing the 8th instalment amount. It would appear that the Court issued the chalan on the same day but it was too late for remittance of the money to the treasury that day. The amount was paid into the treasury on the next day (2.2.1121) itself. Sometime later, on 7.4.1121, the decree-holders proceeded to execute the decree on the basis defendant 6 had become disentitled to the benefit of the Debt Relief Act as he had inclusive of the 8th instalment made default for three instalments. The court of execution overruled the objection and allowed execution to proceed as sought for by the decree-holders. The lower appellate court reversed that decision and upheld defendant 6's objection. Hence this second appeal by the decree-holders. 3. The lower appellate court reversed the decision of the Munsiff on the authority of the decision reported in 26 T.L.J. 989. There under the terms of a compromise decree the amount agreed upon was to be paid on certain specified dates, and on default the plaintiff was to become entitled to execute the decree for the whole of the plaint amount, the interest and costs claimed in the plaint. The instalment amounts were to be paid direct to the plaintiff on the due dates or to be paid into court. The last instalment fell due on the last day of the midsummer vacation of 1109 and the money being tendered to the plaintiff's agent on the next day he refused to accept the same day the judgment-debtor applied to the Court for the issue of a chalan to deposit the money into the treasury. The chalan was however issued only on the next day and the money was deposited on that day. The chalan was however issued only on the next day and the money was deposited on that day. The question arose whether the payment was made in time. The court held that the delay to issue the chalan was caused by the Court and that the debtor cannot be made to suffer for it. The payment was hence held to be valid. We are unable to appreciate how a different rule can be applied for the decision of the case on hand. 4. In the present case the Advocate who was appearing for the debtor in the matter of his application for relief under the Debt Relief Act had filed an affidavit before the lower Appellate Court setting out the circumstances under which the chalan happened to be issued late on 1.2.1121. It would appear that on 1.2.1121 the debtor tendered the instalment amount to the decree-holder's Advocate and the latter declined to accept it. It was when the amount was thus refused to be received that the debtor was obliged to apply for the issue of a chalan. The execution B diary shows that amounts for the five instalments paid were paid into the hands of the decree-holder's Advocate and not into court. The judgement-debtor cannot therefore be blamed for not taking the necessary steps to have the deposit made on 30th Chingom or even on 1.2.1121. The course of conduct between the parties had evolved a different mode of payment than that contemplated by the Act and the obligor cannot be held to be a defaulter for no fault of his the obligee refuses to accept payment when payment is offered according to that mode. In the decision in 26 T.L.J. 989 the Court gave effect to well-known rule, that no litigant can be made to suffer on account of the mistake or delay caused by the Court. 'Acts of the Court hurt no man' is a well-known maxim. It is an equally well-known rule that no person can be allowed to take advantage of his own wrong. The decree holders' Advocate by his conduct on five previous occasions made the debtor believe that he would be accepting payments of the instalment amounts if made within time. As 31.1.1121 was a public holiday payment made or offered on the next working day would be as good as made on the previous day. The decree holders' Advocate by his conduct on five previous occasions made the debtor believe that he would be accepting payments of the instalment amounts if made within time. As 31.1.1121 was a public holiday payment made or offered on the next working day would be as good as made on the previous day. In the case in 26 T.L.J. 989 the compromise decree specifically provided that payment may be effected direct or to the plaintiff or by the deposit in Court. There was no tender on the due date which happened to be a Court holiday. Still the learned judge held that where after tender on the next working day the debtor does everything he could do to pay the money into Court at the earliest possible moment he will be absolved from all blame for a late deposit. If anything the present is an a fortiori case. The fact set out in the affidavit referred to above were not sought to be controverted either in the Court below or before us. In these circumstances we confirm the decision of the lower appellate court and dismiss this Second Appeal with costs. Appeal dismissed.