Judgment :- 1. Counsel appearing for the respondent argues on the basis of S.3 (1) read along with proviso to S.2, (4) (1), hereinafter referred to as the first proviso, and proviso (a) to S.4 (2), hereinafter referred to as the second proviso, of the Kerala Agriculturists' Debt Relief Act, 11 of 1970, for short the Act, that this appeal statutorily stands stayed and so cannot be heard and disposed of. 2. The suit out of which this appeal arises was one filed by the appellant, the State Bank of Travancore, for recovery of Rs. 9833.05 due from the respondent under an overdraft agreement. The only contention raised by the respondent and which was accepted by both the courts below was that he was an agriculturist entitled to the benefits of S.5 of Act 31 of 1958. In conformity with that finding the appellant was given a decree for Rs. 4809/-. 3. It is not disputed by the respondent's counsel that in the instant case the debt due from the respondent is one borrowed under a single transaction and that it exceeds Rs. 3000/-. Similarly it is not disputed by the appellant's counsel that the respondent is an agriculturist. 4. The relevant sections in the Act read thus: "3. Bar of suits and applications (1) No suit for recovery of a debt shall be instituted and no application for execution of a decree in respect of a debt shall be made, against any agriculturist in any court before the expiry of six months from the commencement of this Act; and all such suits and applications instituted or made against any agriculturist before such commencement and pending at such commencement shall stand stayed for the said period of six months." "2. Definitions. In this Act, unless the context otherwise requires, ................ Definitions. In this Act, unless the context otherwise requires, ................ (4) "debt" means any liability in cash or kind, whether secured or unsecured, due from or incurred by an agriculturist on or before the commencement of this Act, whether payable under a contract, or under a decree or order of any court, or otherwise, but does not include (1) any debt exceeding three thousand rupees borrowed under a single transaction and due before the commencement of this Act to any banking company: Provided that in the case of any debt exceeding three thousand rupees borrowed under a single transaction and due before the commencement of this Act to any banking company, any agriculturist debtor shall be entitled to repay such debt in eight equal half-yearly instalments............." 114........ (2) If any debt is repaid in seventeen equal half-yearly instalments together with interest at the rate specified in S. S on the principal outstanding at the time of each payment, the whole debt shall be deemed to be discharged: Provided that (a) in the case of debts due to a banking company, the number of instalments in which the debt shall be repaid shall be twelve where the debt does not exceed three thousand rupees and eight where it exceeds three thousand rupees. (3) The first instalment of any debt payable under sub-S. (2) shall be paid before the expiry of a period of six months from the commencement of this Act, and each of the remaining instalments shall be paid on or before the expiry of a period of six months from the last day on which the previous instalment was due." 5. Debts over Rs. 3000/- due to a Banking Company under a single transaction although they are excluded from the definition of the word 'debt' in S.2 (4) of the Act, are dealt with in the first and second provisos and certain benefits are conferred by those provisos on the debtors from whom those debts are due in that they are allowed to discharge them in eight equal half-yearly instalments. By S.4 (3) of the Act a debtor gets six months time from the date of the commencement of the Act to pay the first instalment of the debt. By S.4 (3) of the Act a debtor gets six months time from the date of the commencement of the Act to pay the first instalment of the debt. That applies to all kinds of debts which have been allowed to be discharged in instalments irrespective of the question whether they are debts coming within the definition of the word 'debt' or not and it is during that identical period of six months that S.3 provides that all suits shall stand stayed. The import of the word 'debt' as used in S.3 can be taken to be the same as used in the definition of that word in S.2 (4) only if the context does not otherwise require it as S.2 begins by saying "unless the context otherwise requires". A reading of the sections quoted above, together shows that the object of the enactment of S.3 was to place an interdict on suits on debts coming within the first and second provisos as well. It is trite law that it is the duty of the Court, in construing a statute, to ascertain and implement the intention of the legislature as expressed therein. No injustice or absurdity would result by interpreting the word 'debt' as used in S.3 as including those covered by the first and second provisos also. The context requires such an interpretation. Counsel appearing for the appellant relied upon certain observations in the Full Bench decision of this Court in Catholic Bank of India Ltd. v. George Jacob 1967 KLT 416 to show that the word 'debt' cannot be interpreted in that manner. That decision relates to interpretation of the word 'debt' as used in S.4 and 5 of the predecessor Act, 31 of 1958. It had nothing to do with the interpretation of the word 'debt' as used in S.3 of that Act which was similar to S.3 of the present Act in so far it relates to bar of applications for execution. As this appeal is bit by S.3 of the Act take this appeal for hearing after expiry of the period of prohibition mentioned in it. Counsel for the appellant prays for leave to appeal. Leave is granted.