Judgment :- 1. The petitioner is a creditor who had advanced a sum of Rs. 3300 to the first respondent on a mortgage of his properties and the said mortgage was dated 19th June, 1970. In respect of the said mortgage the first respondent-debtor filed an application before the second respondent, the Debt Relief Tahsildar, claiming relief under Act 13 of 1980 and seeking a certificate of redemption of the said mortgage. 2. The said application was resisted by the creditor, the petitioner herein the second respondent, after duly considering the evidence available before him by his order dated 5th January, 1981 held that the first respondent is not entitled to claim the benefit of Act 13 of 1980. Subsequently, the petitioner filed a suit O.S. 117 of 1981 on the file of the Sub Court, Nagapattinam, and obtained a consent decree on 28th July, 1981, granting six months time to the first respondent for payment of the decree amount. However, on an appeal filed by the first respondent against the order of the second respondent, dated 5th January, 1981, the second respondent by his order dated 1st January, 1982, had directed the grant of a certificate of redemption holding that the first respondent is entitled to the benefit of Act 13 of 1980. The result is, the third respondent, the appellate authority, constituted under Act 3 of 1980 has nullified the decree passed by the civil court. The said order of the appellate authority has been challenged in this writ petition mainly on the ground that the authority constituted under Act 13 of 1980 has no power or jurisdiction to nullify a decree of a civil court and therefore when the debt has been sued upon in a civil court and a decree his been obtained the authorities constituted under the Act cease to have any jurisdiction to entertain the petitions claiming relief under the Act. The submission made by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the appellate authority had no jurisdiction to nullify the decree appears to be legally tenable. The submission made by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the appellate authority had no jurisdiction to nullify the decree appears to be legally tenable. Admittedly in this case, at the time when the appellate authority disposed of the appeal filed by the first respondent, the decree of the civil court, dated 28th July, 1981, in O.S. 117 of 1981 was brought to the notice of the appellate authority but none the less the appellate authority has chosen to practically nullify the same by issuing a certificate of redemption to the first respondent. The question is whether the order of the Appellate Authority impugned in this writ petition could be sustained. It has been held in a series of Bench decisions of this Court that Act 13 of 1980 does not by-pass the decrees already passed by the civil court and that there being no non-obstante clause in either of the Secs. 4, 5 and 6, the authorities functioning under those provisions have no jurisdiction to nullify the decree passed by the civil court by giving a certificate of redemption. Even in the cases where decrees had been obtained from the civil courts in respect of debts, applications under Act 13 of 1980 had been filed. Notwithstanding the existence of these decrees, the Debt Relief Tahsildar and the appellate authority had invoked their powers and granted certificates of discharge in favour of the debtors. The Court held that since by the grant of such certificates of discharge in favour of the debtors they nullify the decrees passed by the civil Court which they have no jurisdiction to do, their order cannot legally be sustained, (vide R.K.R. Radhakrishna Chettiar and Sons v. Tahsildar (Debt Relief). Kumbakonam and others 1 . In Annamalai v. Pappathi 2 also the same Division Bench has again reiterated the decision in the following terms:— “In cases where the creditor has filed a suit and obtained a decree in relation to the debt, the Tahsildar or the appellate authority acting under Ss. 4, 5 and 6 of Tamil Nadu Act 13 of 1980 have no jurisdiction to give either a certificate of redemption or a direction to release the properties. In such cases it is only the civil court which has to adjudicate on the question as to whether the borrower is a person entitled to the benefits of the Act.” 3. 4, 5 and 6 of Tamil Nadu Act 13 of 1980 have no jurisdiction to give either a certificate of redemption or a direction to release the properties. In such cases it is only the civil court which has to adjudicate on the question as to whether the borrower is a person entitled to the benefits of the Act.” 3. In this case, as already stated, initially the original authority dismissed the claim of the first respondent for benefits under the Act. Thereafter the creditor filed a suit and obtained a decree. After the decree, the appellate authority has granted a certificate of redemption practically nullifying the decree of the civil court which it has no power to do. The fact that the appeal is a continuation of the original proceeding which was filed earlier to the institution of the suit will not affect the question. 4. In this view of the matter, the impugned order passed by the appellate authority, the third respondent herein, has to be and is hereby quashed as one having been passed without jurisdiction. There will be no order as to costs.