JAGAT NARAYAN, J.—This is an appeal by one Tikamdas under sec. 40 of the Displaced Persons (Debts Adjustment) Act 1951 against an order of the Civil Judge, Jodhpur, dismissing his claim filed under sec. 10 of the Act. During the pendency of the appeal Tikamdas died and his legal representatives have been brought on record. 2. The claim was filed against Kodumal respondent for the recovery of a sum of Rs. 510-15-3 principal and Rs. 300/-interest, on 25.8.58 on the allegation that Tikamdas was a displaced debtor. 3. It is not disputed that before partition the parties used to reside in Karachi and migrated to India after partition. The case of the plaintiff is that the defendant used to purchase goods from him on credit and used to made payments from time to time. The dealings between the parties started on 30.9.47. Copies of the entries in the account books of the plaintiff have been filed. It is alleged that on 1st January 1950 accounts were settled between the parties and a sum of Rs. 610-15-3 was found due to the plaintiff against the defendant. The defendant agreed to this balance verbally on that date and on 7.1.50 he acknowledged this balance in writing (paper No. C. 1/3). He renewed the above Khata on 13.12.52 under his signatures by endorsing "the above Khata is renewed". He made a payment of Rs. 100/- and executed another Khata on 11.12.55 (paper C. 1/2) which runs as follows— ,dks jke jke lr~ lgh ys[kk 1 lsB eksrhjke dk Mkyk fefr dkrh rkjh[k 26] 2012&11-12-55 510&15&3 fefr dkrh rkjh[k 26] 2012 rkjh[k 11&12&55 Åij okys ys[ks dh ckd;kr fudkyh v[kjs :i;s ikap lkS Åij :i;s nl vkuk lok iUnzg iwjk fcuk C;kt dsA One Anna Stamp nLr[kr fla?kh esa dksnwey iq= eksrhjketh rk- 11&12&55 The present suit was instituted on the basis of the above accounts. The learned Civil Judge dismissed it on the ground that the pecuniary liability incurred before the commencement of the Act was renewed after the Act came into force. He relied on the decision of a learned single Judge of the Pepsu High Court in Netaram vs. Gopaldas (1). 4. On behalf of the appellants it is contended that the decision of the Pepsu High Court relied upon by the trial court is erroneous and that the present claim was maintainable under the Act. He relied on the decision of a learned single Judge of the Pepsu High Court in Netaram vs. Gopaldas (1). 4. On behalf of the appellants it is contended that the decision of the Pepsu High Court relied upon by the trial court is erroneous and that the present claim was maintainable under the Act. Reliance was placed on the decision of a learned single Judge of the Andhra Pradesh High Court in M. Mathradas vs. Hariram (2). 5. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and am of the opinion that the view taken in M. Mathradas vs. Hariram by the Andhra Pradesh High Court is the correct view— "Debt" is defined as follows under sec. 5. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and am of the opinion that the view taken in M. Mathradas vs. Hariram by the Andhra Pradesh High Court is the correct view— "Debt" is defined as follows under sec. 2(6);- "debt means any pecuniary liability, whether payable presently or in future, or under a decree or order of a civil or revenue court or otherwise, or whether ascertained or to be ascertained, which— (a) in the case of a displaced person who has left or been displaced from his place of residence in any area now forming part of West Pakistan, was incurred before he came to reside in any area now forming part of India, (b) in the case of a displaced person who, before and after the 15th day of Aug., 1947, has been residing in any area now forming part of India, "was incurred before the said date on the security of any immovable property situate in the territories now forming part of West Pakistan; Provided that where any such liability was incurred on the security of immovable properties situate both in India and in West Pakistan, liability shall be (so apportioned between the said properties that i the liability in relation to each of the said properties bears the same proportion to the total amount of the debts as the value of each of the properties as at the date of the transaction bears to the total value of the properties furnished as security, and the liability, for the purposes of this clause, shall be the liability which is relatable to the property in West Pakistan : (c) is due to a displaced person from any other person (whether a displaced person or not) ordinarily residing in the territories to which this Act extends: and includes any pecuniary liability incurred before the commencement of this Act by any such person as is referred to in this clause which is based on and is solely by way of renewal of any such liability as is referred to in sub-cl. (a) or sub-cl. (b) or sub-cl. (a) or sub-cl. (b) or sub-cl. (c): Provided that in the case of a loan whether in cash or in kind, the amount originally advanced and not the amount for which the liability has been renewed shall be deemed to be the extent of the liability: but does not include any pecuniary liability due under a decree passed after the 15th day of August, 1947, by any court situate in West Pakistan or any pecuniary liability the proof of which depends merely on an oral agreement." "Displaced creditor", "displaced debtor" and "displaced person have been defined under sub-sees. (8), (9) and (10) of sec. 2 as follows— "displaced creditor" means a displaced person to whom a debt is due from any other person, whether a displaced person or not, displaced debtor means a displaced person from whom a debt is due or is being claimed, "displaced person means any person who, on account of the setting up of the Dominions of India and Pakistan, or on account of civil disturbances or the fear of such disturbances in any area now forming part of West Pakistan, has after the 1st day of March, 1947, left, or been displaced from, his place of residence in such area and who has been subsequently residing in India, and includes any person who is resident in any place now forming part of India and who for that reason is unable or has been rendered unable to manage, supervise or control any immovable property belonging to him in West Pakistan, but does not include a banking company. 7. Sec. 5 provides for an application by a displaced debtor for the adjustment of his debts. No such application will be maintainable in the case of a simple debt unless the liability was incurred before migration as provided under sec. 2(6) (a) and incase of a secured debt unless the liability was incurred before 15th August. 1947. 8. A displaced creditor can file a claim against a displaced debtor under sec. 10. It is clear that in case of claim in respect of a simple debt the liability must have been incurred before the displaced debtor migrated from West Pakistan and in case of a secured debt before 15th August, 1947. But in case of claim by a creditor, sec. 2(6) (c) will be applicable and a claim under sec. 10. It is clear that in case of claim in respect of a simple debt the liability must have been incurred before the displaced debtor migrated from West Pakistan and in case of a secured debt before 15th August, 1947. But in case of claim by a creditor, sec. 2(6) (c) will be applicable and a claim under sec. 10 will be maintainable on the basis of a pecuniary liability incurred before migration under sec. 2(6) (a) or before 15th August 1947 under sec. (6) (b) even if such liability has been renewed. 9. Sec. 13 provides for claims by displaced creditors against persons who are not displaced. In such cases also sec. 2(6) (b) will be applicable. 10. As was held by a Division Bench of the Bombay High Court in Ramchand Tillumal vs. Khubchand (3) the original pecuniary liability must have been incurred before the Act came into force namely before 20-15-51. 11. In Neta Ram vs. Gopal Das (1) Chopra, J. observed that so far as the renewal of previous liability is concerned that renewal must be shown to have taken place before the Act came into force as provided by the second part of the definition of the term debt With all respect in my opinion the second part by which obviously the learned Judge referred to sub-clause (c) nowhere provides that the renewal should also have been made before the coming into force of the Act. There is no renewal of a liability unless the so called renewal gives rise to a fresh cause of action. If the Legislature had intended that the Act should not apply to claims which were renewed after it came into force then the words "which is based on and is solely by way of renewal of any such liability as is referred to in sub-clause (a) or sub-clause (b) or sub-cluse (c)" would be redundant. In my opinion by virtue of sub-clause (c) a claim can be made under sec. 10 provided it is based on a pecuniary liability incurred before the commencement of the Act, even though it is renewed after the commencement of the Act. I accordingly hold that the present claim of Tikam Das is maintainable under sec. 10 of the Act. 12. 10 provided it is based on a pecuniary liability incurred before the commencement of the Act, even though it is renewed after the commencement of the Act. I accordingly hold that the present claim of Tikam Das is maintainable under sec. 10 of the Act. 12. Another ground which was raised on behalf of the displaced debtor before me was that the claim is based on an oral settlement of accounts dated 1.1.50 and therefore it is excluded by the last para of sud-clause (c). That para excludes any pecuniary liability the proof of which depends merely on an oral agreement. In the present case the proof of the liability does not depend merely on an oral agreement. The plaintiff has filed entries from his account books which show a balance of Rs. 610-15-3 against the defendant on 1.1.50. This balance is supported by the acknowledgment in writing by the defendant dated 7.1.50. Fresh writings were executed by the defendant on 13.12.52 and 11.12.55 respectively, admitting the liability. 13. I accordingly allow the appeal, set aside the order of the learned Civil Judge dismissing the claim and remand the case to his court for decision in accordance with law. Parties shall bear their own costs of this appeal.