Judgment :- 1. The parties in both these revision petitions are the same. Appeals are pending against two decrees obtained by the respondent against the petitioner. While so, the petitioner filed I A. 584 of 1975 and I. A. 585/ 75 for a stay of proceedings under Act 30 of 1975 (hereafter to be referred as 'the Act'). The petitions were opposed on the ground that the petitioner is not a debtor under the Act since he was assessed to agricultural income-tax during three years preceding the date of commencement of the Act. The District judge accepted the contention and dismissed the petitions. The said orders are challenged in revision. 2. There is no dispute that the assessment orders relate to the petitioner. These assessment orders show that he was assessed to an income of Rs. 18048/- for the year 1970-71, Rs. 22317/- for the year 1971-72, for Rs. 23336/- for the year 1972-73 and for Rs. 25,115/- for the year 1973-74. The assessment orders for 1970-71 and 1971-72 were passed on 116 73, that of 1972-73 was on 14 71973 and that of 1973-74 was on 12 2 1975. Under S.2(5) (iii), a person will stand excluded from the definition of a debtor if it is proved that he is assessed to agricultural income-tax in any two years within three years immediately preceding the commencement of the Act on an income exceeding eight thousand rupees per annum, The three years for the purpose of this section is the period 14101972 to 14101975. The contention put forward on behalf of the petitioner is that the full period of two years for which the assessment is made should fall within the above period. In the instant case, the assessment year commences from the 1st of April in a calendar year and ends with 31st March in the next calendar year. If that be so, the assessment years 1970-71,1971-72 and 1972-73 do not fall within the period of three years. The two years which fall within the period are 1973-74 and 1974-75. The respondent has produced the assessment order only in respect of the year 1973-74. It appears that the assessment for the year 1974-75 was not over, when the documents were produced The point for consideration is whether the above argument should be accepted. 3. The two years which fall within the period are 1973-74 and 1974-75. The respondent has produced the assessment order only in respect of the year 1973-74. It appears that the assessment for the year 1974-75 was not over, when the documents were produced The point for consideration is whether the above argument should be accepted. 3. It is a well-known principle of interpretation that effect should be given to every part of the Statute Law should be interpreted so as to make no word used therein redundant, if it is possible to give effect to all the words used. In the instant case, if the interpretation suggested by the revision petitioner is accepted, the words "within three years" in S.2(5) (iii) become superfluous and only persons who are assessed to agricultural income-tax during 1973-1974 and 1974-75 are excluded from the definition of the word 'debtor'. This could not be the intention of the Legislature. It is not to be presumed that the Legislature used the above words without any purpose. "All statutes are to be construed by the Courts so as to give effect to the intention which is expressed by the words used in the statute. But that is not to be discovered by considering those words in the abstract, but by inquiring what is the intention expressed by those words used in a statute with reference to the subject matter and for the object with which that statute was made; it being a question to be determined by the Court, and a very important one, what was the object for which it appears that the statute was made." (Per Lord Blackburn in Bradlaugh v. Clarke 1883 A. C. 354 at page 372). If the words of a statute are clear, Courts may not be justified in considering whether they carry out the object of the enactment. But when the words carry no meaning or where a too literal interpretation put to the section would make no sense or produce absurdity, the purpose of the statute can be gone into and words could be imported to give meaning to the words and to fulfil the said purpose. 4. The statement of objects and reasons of the Act mentions about the accrual of debts on a large scale by the weaker sections of the community. 4. The statement of objects and reasons of the Act mentions about the accrual of debts on a large scale by the weaker sections of the community. It is also clear from the preamble that the Act was intended to provide relief only to certain debtors and not to all debtors. From the scheme of the Act, it is evident that the persons who belong to the higher income groups who had occasion to borrow amounts from others are not intended to be given the benefits of the Act. Persons who are assessed to income-tax, agricultural Incometax and sales tax for amounts exceeding a certain limit are presumed to fall under the higher income group. It is to facilitate the exclusion of such persons that clauses (i), (ii) and (iii) of S.2(5) are enacted. In enacting the above provisions, the Legislature must be held to have presumed that official acts are regularly performed and that in the case of persons assess d to incometax, sales tax and agricultural incometax, there would ordinarily be at least two orders of assessment during the period of three years, 14101972 to 4101975. In other words, what could have been intended by the Legislature is only that there should be two orders of assessment to incometax, sales tax or agricultural income-tax within the above period of three years and not that the concerned assessment years or accounting years should fall within the period of three years. 5. It could as well be that the words "three years" in clauses (i), (ii) and (Hi) of S.2(5) stand for three assessment years immediately preceding the commencement of the Act. In either case, the petitioner will stand excluded from the definition of the word 'debtor'. The revision petitions are therefore, dismissed with costs. Dismissed.