Research › Browse › Judgment

Madhya Pradesh High Court · body

1977 DIGILAW 573 (MP)

Pura v. Chena

1977-11-21

S.R.VYAS

body1977
Short Note : The non-applicant Chena submitted an application to the Debt Relief Board constituted under section 3 of the Madhya Bharat Act and alleged that he is an agriculturist holding lands in village Kalukhedi that the applicant Pura, the non-applicant Lalji and two other persons by name Madhuji and Rupsing are his creditors, out of which the applicant pura had obtained a decree against him from the Court of Small Causes, Susner; that despite the decree passed against him, nothing was due and that in these circumstances the matter be enquired into and if any amount is found due the same is made payable by yearly instalment of Rs.50/-. A prayer was also made for staying the proceedings for the execution of the decree passed in favour of the creditor Pura. The applicant Pura filed a reply to this application that Chena was not an agriculturist as contemplated by the Madhya Bharat Act and that he was not entitled to any relief. 2. The Board (Civil Judge) on 30-6-1972 held that since the creditor Pura has not filed an application in support of his claim under section 8 of the Gwalior State Act, the debtor, namely, the non-applicant Chena was discharged from the decretal debt. Against this order, Pura filed an appeal under section 41 of the Madhya Bharat Act and the same was heard by the Additional District Judge, Shajapur. The learned Additional District Judge also took the view that since no application was filed by the appellant Pura under section 8(1) of the Agriculturist Debtors Relief Act (Gwalior State) the Board was justified in passing the impugned order. The applicant Pura filed this revision application against the aforesaid order. Held : In the State of Madhya Bharat prior to the formation of this State of new Madhya Pradesh, the Madhya Bharat Act was in force from 29-10-1956. This Act repealed the Agricultural Debtors Relief Ac, Gwalior State, Samvat 2002. The non-applicant Chena presented the application to the Board consisting of the Civil Judge Class II, Agar and another Member on 29-07-1968. This Act repealed the Agricultural Debtors Relief Ac, Gwalior State, Samvat 2002. The non-applicant Chena presented the application to the Board consisting of the Civil Judge Class II, Agar and another Member on 29-07-1968. On that date by virtue of the provisions of section 74 of the Madhya Bharat Act, the Gwalior State Act was repealed and the Madhya Bharat Act was brought into force, Section 8 of the Madhya Bharat Act required certain particulars to be furnished in case an application under section 4 of the Madhya Bharat was filed either by the creditor or by the debtor. The Board constituted under the Act as well as the learned Additional District Judge have taken the view that since no particulars were furnished by the creditor, namely, the present applicant Pura under section 8(1) of the Gwalior State Agricultural Debtors Relief Act, his claim could not be investigated and the debtor was entitled to a complete discharge. As stated above, the Gwalior State Act, which was present to the mind of the learned Members of the Board as well as the learned Additional District Judge was not in force not only on the date of impugned orders were passed but even on the date when the non-applicant presented the said application under section 6 of the Madhya Bharat Act. Section 8 of the Madhya Bharat Act in fact does not contemplate and it is only section 4 which provides for an application being made either by a debtor or by any of his creditors. The applicant had not made any application under section 4 of the Madhya Bharat Act and on the contrary the application was made by the non-applicant debtor and, therefore, he was not required to furnish any particulars as required by section 8(1) of the Madhya Bharat Act. Neither the Board nor the Additional District Judge was, therefore, justified in passing the order of discharge consequent upon the failure of the applicant to file the particulars of his claim under section 8(1) of the Madhya Bharat Act (wrongly mentioned as the Gwalior Act). What procedure had to be followed after an application is made by the debtor is indicated in sections 11, 12, 13, 14 and the sections that follow. It is only under section 11 of the Act that a debtor can be called upon to submit the statement of the debts. What procedure had to be followed after an application is made by the debtor is indicated in sections 11, 12, 13, 14 and the sections that follow. It is only under section 11 of the Act that a debtor can be called upon to submit the statement of the debts. In this case the debt in respect of which the relief was sought was a decretal debt. In any event, section 8(1) of the Madhya Bharat Act was not applicable and what was applicable was the provisions contained in section 11 and the following sections of the Madhya Bharat Act. Both the learned Board and the learned Additional District Judge appear to have laboured under misapprehension about the applicability of the Gwalior State Act as also the application of section 8(1) to the facts of the present case. In these circumstances, it is necessary that the matter should be remanded back to the Board for re-consideration of the claim made by the non-applicant in the light of the observations made above. The learned Board shall consider afresh the claim made by the non-applicant in the light of above mentioned provisions of the Madhya Bharat Act and then pass suitable orders. Revision allowed.