( 1 ) WHEN this writ petition came up for consideration of the question of continuancy or otherwise of the impugned order, by consent of parties, the writ petition is taken up for final hearing today. ( 2 ) THE 3rd respondent made an application under S. 4 of the Karnataka debt Relief Act, 1976 before the Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Nan-jungud, for a declaration that the debt due by the 3rd respondent has been extinguished and for a direction to the petitioner and the 4th respondent to restore possession of the mortgaged property. The case was set down for hearing on 4-10-1976, on which date the impugned order-Ext. 'b'-was made by the Sub-Divisional Magistrate. ( 3 ) THE Sub-Divisional Magistrate has noticed in the order that the 3rd respondent was present and that the petitioner and the 4th respondent who were arrayed as respondent-creditors, were absent when the case was taken up for hearing. In this writ petition challenging the said order the principal complaint of the petitioner in that he was not given an opportunity of hearing on 4-10-1976. ( 4 ) THE case of the petitioner is that as he was called upon to appear before the Sub-Divisional Magistrate on 4-10-1976 to participate in the hearing of the case, he did go from his village Dasanur to the office of the sub-Divisional Magistrate, Nanjungud on 4-10-1976. It is his case that he was waiting outside the office of the Sub-Divisional Magistrate to be called inside when his case is taken up for consideration. It is his further case that he waited till the evening of 4-10-1976 but the case was not called and that he was not asked to come inside to participate in the hearing of the case. In the evening, when the members of the staff were going home, he made enquiries with them and came to know that the hearing of his case had been closed on that day itself. The petitioner has asserted that he is an illiterate villager and that he is not acquainted with the practice and procedure followed in the office of the Sub-Divisional magistrate. He has further stated that he bonafide felt that it is enough for him to wait outside the office of the Sub-Divisional Magistrate and that as and when his case is reached, he would be called inside to participate in the proceedings. He has further stated that he bonafide felt that it is enough for him to wait outside the office of the Sub-Divisional Magistrate and that as and when his case is reached, he would be called inside to participate in the proceedings. ( 5 ) THAT the petitioner and the 4th respondent were present on 4-10- 1976, the date of hearing, is virtually admitted by the 3rd respondent in the statement of objections. In para-4 at page 4 of the Statement of Objections, it is stated by the 3rd respondent that in fact the petitioner and the 4th respondent were outside the compound, and they never entered the Court Hall when the case was called on for hearing two times. It is impossible in the circumstances to believe that the petitioner and the 4th respondent would have gone all the way to the office of the Sub-Divisional magistrate with a determination not to enter the Court Hall when their case is taken up for consideration. It is obvious that they went all the way to the office of the Sub-Divisional Magistrate with a view to participate in the proceedings and to defend their case. There was no reason for them to take the trouble of going to the office of the Sub-Divisional magistrate all the way from their village only to abstain from the hearing. It is nobody's case that they were waiting there for some other purpose. With this background, the version of the petitioner that he bonafide waited outside to be called for the hearing of the case, deserves to be accepted. It is necessary to bear in mind, persons like the petitioner, who are required to appear before the Sub-Divisional Magistrate under the karnataka Debt Relief Act, 1976, who are illiterate villagers, are not aided or assisted by Lawyers. Illiterate villagers are overawed by the atmosphere of the office of the Sub-Divisional Magistrate. In these circumstances, it would be the duty of the officials of the office of the Sub-Divisional magistrate, to look outside the office and to ascertain if the parties concerned in the cases have come or not for the purpose of participating in the inquiry. Illiterate villagers are overawed by the atmosphere of the office of the Sub-Divisional Magistrate. In these circumstances, it would be the duty of the officials of the office of the Sub-Divisional magistrate, to look outside the office and to ascertain if the parties concerned in the cases have come or not for the purpose of participating in the inquiry. It would be more appropriate, as is usually done in Courts, to call out the names of the parties outside the office and to attract their attention to the proceedings to be commenced inside the Court of the Sub-Divisional magistrate. It is nobody's case that such procedure was followed and the attention of the petitioner was drawn to his case being called for hearing. I, therefore, hold that although the petitioner was present in the office of the Sub-Divisional Magistrate, he was not informed that his case was about to be taken up for hearing and that he should participate in the same. As that has been not done, the petitioner could not in fact participate in the proceedings in question. As the petitioner was thus denied an opportunity of participating in the inquiry, it has to be held that there has been substantial failure of justice. Hence this writ petition is entitled to succeed. ( 6 ) FOR the reasons stated above, this writ petition is allowed and the order of the Sub-Divisional Magistrate-Ext. 'b'- is hereby quashed and the case is remitted back to the Sub-Divisional Magistrate for a fresh disposal, with a direction to him to permit all the parties to adduce evidence in support of their respective contentions and to hear them before finally disposing of the matter. --- *** --- .