Research › Search › Judgment

Punjab High Court · body

2000 DIGILAW 838 (PNJ)

Raj Rani v. Additional Civil Judge

2000-08-02

R.L.ANAND

body2000
JUDGMENT R.L. Anand, J. - This is a Civil Revision and has been directed against the order dated 15.5.1998, passed by the Additional Civil Judge (Sr. Division), Narnaul, who dismissed the application of the petitioners under Section 31 of the Punjab Relief of indebtedness Act, 1934, for the reasons given in paras No. 5 and 6 of the impugned order which are reproduced as under :- "5. Section 7 of the Punjab Relief of Indebtedness Act defines a "debt" and a "debtor". The applicant has failed to show as to how the above said amount of Rs. 62,000/- only is covered by the definition of the term "Debt" in the above said Act. The applicant has also failed to show as to how he is covered by the definition of the term "Debtor" under the above said Act. The Punjab Relief of Indebtedness Act, 1934 was enacted to provide relief to petty agriculturists, labourers, petty borrowers etc. The applicant has failed to show any case law in order to prove that the abovesaid transaction between the parties can be brought under the purview of the Punjab Relief of Indebtedness Act. 6. When the amount in question is not a "debt" and the applicant is not a "Debtor", then the provisions of the Punjab Relief of Indebtedness Act, 1934, are obviously, not attracted to the case in hand. That being so, the deposit alleged to have been made by the applicant under Section 31 of the Punjab Relief of Indebtedness Act, 1934 cannot be deemed to be a valid deposit. The above said deposit shall not confer any rights or benefits available under Section 31 of the Punjab Relief of Indebtedness Act, 1934 upon the applicant. The applicant shall be at liberty to withdraw the amount in question from the Court." Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners submitted with the aid of AIR 1980 Supreme Court 1709 that the Court below committed a patent illegality in viewing the entire matter. The counsel further submitted that the application was moved under Section 31 of the Punjab Relief of Indebtedness Act, 1934 i.e. under Part-VI which lays down that any person who owes money may at any time deposit in Court a sum of money in full or part payment to his creditor. The counsel further submitted that the application was moved under Section 31 of the Punjab Relief of Indebtedness Act, 1934 i.e. under Part-VI which lays down that any person who owes money may at any time deposit in Court a sum of money in full or part payment to his creditor. According to sub-clause (2) of Section 31, the Court on receipt of such deposit shall give notice thereof to the creditor and shall, on his application, pay the sum to him. Sub-clause (3) of Section 31 further lays down that from the date of such deposit interest shall cease to run on the sum so deposited. The learned counsel submitted that relationship of debt and debtor was supposed to be determined under Chapter IV but the application under Section 31 of the Act has been filed under Chapter VI and, therefore, the learned trial Court has not viewed the case in the right perspective. 2. On the contrary, learned counsel for the respondents submitted that a sum of Rs. 62,000/- was advanced to Shri Vinod Kumar, father of the present petitioners, by way of an earnest money on the basis of a written agreement dated 9.8.1995 vide which Shri Vinod Kumar agreed to sell the immovable property for a consideration of Rs. 1,50,000/- and he received a sum of Rs. 62,000/- by way of earnest money with a stipulation that the sale deed would be executed on or before 9.8.1996 and the agreement further contemplated that if the vendor wanted to rescind the contract he could pay the amount of Rs. 62,000/- on or before 9.8.1996. Since the amount has not been paid, therefore, this agreement has become enforceable and in these circumstances the application under Section 31 of the Punjab Relief of Indebtedness Act, 1934, is not legally maintainable. 3. I have considered the rival contentions of the parties and in my opinion, this revision is totally devoid of any merit. The reading of Section 31 would show that it will come into play where there is a simple loan, such as loan taken on pronote. Where the rights are governed under a contract, the remedy of the petitioner lies somewhere under the Specific Relief Act and not under Section 31 of the Act. The reading of Section 31 would show that it will come into play where there is a simple loan, such as loan taken on pronote. Where the rights are governed under a contract, the remedy of the petitioner lies somewhere under the Specific Relief Act and not under Section 31 of the Act. He can approach the Civil Court by saying that he was always ready and willing to perform his part of the contract under the agreement and the defendant refused to perform the agreement. Therefore, the agreement of sale requires recession. In the view of this Court, the application under Section 31 of the Act was totally misconceived. It is true that the lower Court has dealt the aspect under Chapter IV of the Act but in my opinion the provisions of Specific Relief Act were more appropriate. In these circumstances, I do not see any merit in this revision. Dismissed. Revision dismissed.