JUDGMENT: This second appeal arises out of the concurrent findings of the Courts below to the effect that by virtue of payment of one instalment by the respondent in respect of the kist amount due by him as per G.O.No.233, dated 29.7.1975, the entire default amount due and payable by him got wiped out. 2. The brief facts are that the respondent was a successful bidder in respect of a taddy shop in T.S.No.37 which was auctioned on 4.7.1972. The respondent being the successful bidder, agreed to pay monthly kist of Rs.2,100 for the period from September, 1972 to 31st August, 1973. It is not in dispute that after the month of December, 1972, the respondent failed to pay the kist amount and also closed the shop for various reasons. In those circumstances, the shop was re-auctioned on 1.5.1973 and the kist amount was arrived at a sum of Rs.1,180. According to the appellant, they suffered a loss of Rs.9,200 for the unexpired period of licence and after adjusting the security deposit made by the respondent, the suit was laid for a sum of Rs.10,100. The respondent contended that under G.O.233, dated 29.7.1975, the appellant offered a scheme by which in the event of the respondent paying one month kist after ascertainment of the total default amount due, then the entire liability would get wiped out, that on the basis of the said G.O. after ascertainment of the total dues,one month, due payable by the respondent worked out to Rs.1,100 that the said sum of Rs.1,100 was paid by the respondent on 18.12.1976 and inasmuch as no time limit was prescribed under G.O.233, by virtue of the payment of one instalment on 18.12.1976, the entire liability got wiped out. The respondent therefore prayed for the dismissal of the suit. It was also the stand of the respondent that the time prescribed under G.O.544, dated 9.3.1978 for the payment of instalments prescribed under G.O.233 was much later in point of time and that in any event, the payment had been made by the respondent long before the time prescribed under G.O.544, and therefore even by applying G.O.544, the respondent was entitled for the relief provided under G.O.233. The trial Court as well as the lower appellate Court were of the view that on payment of one instalment of the respondent on 18.12.1976 irrespective of the fact that the said instalment was paid, pursuant to the revenue recovery proceedings initiated at the instance of the appellant, the respondent was entitled for the benefits provided under G.O.233. So holding, the trial Court dismissed the suit and the lower Appellate Court confirmed the judgment and decree of the trial Court. Learned counsel for the appellant contended that the Courts below failed to apply the provisions contained in G.O.233 in the proper perspective which unfortunately led to the dismissal of the suit. 3. For the disposal of the appeal, I feel that a perusal of Exs.A-8, A-10, A-11 and B-1 are very relevant. Ex.A-8 is G.O.233, dated 29.7.1975. The relevant portion is clause 4 of the said G.O. reads as under: “The Collectors are requested to examine the case of each defaulter and offer these terms to him and come to a settlement as to the amount due from him under this order and offer to waive the balance on his paying the sum worked out and on his withdrawal of the civil suit/writ petition if any filed by him. Such sum should be paid to the Government within a month of the defaulter accepting the offer. A defaulter who does not accept the offer and come to a settlement or who after coming to a settlement fails to fulfil any of the obligation of the Settlement will be liable to pay the entire sum due from him which will be recoverable under the Revenue Recovery Act”. 4. As per clause 4 of the said G.O., the Collectors have been directed to examine the case of each defaulter and offer them the terms provided in the G.O. and come to a settlement as to the amount due from the concerned defaulter and thereafter make an offer to waive the balance on the defaulter paying the sum worked out and also in such of these cases where the defaulters had initiated any civil suit or writ petition, they should also ensure the withdrawal of those proceedings. It is also stipulated that on ascertainment of the same and the payment of one month due is finalised and on acceptance by the defaulter for making the said payment, the payment should be made within one month from date of acceptance of the defaulter. In the event of defaulters failing to fulfil any of the obligations of the settlement so reached, then they would become liable to pay the entire sum due which could be recovered by way of revenue recovery proceedings. 5. Based on this G.O., it transpires that under Ex.A-10., the appellant herein in his proceedings dated 29.9.1975 appeared to have ascertained the total sum due and payable by the respondent a sum of Rs.10,300, that in the event of the respondent paying monthly instalment of Rs.1,100 the balance amount of Rs.9,200 would be given up. Under the said proceedings, the consent of the respondent was also sought for. Thereafter, under Ex.B-1 it came to light that the respondent gave his consent on 15.10.1975 and agreed to pay one month kist amount of Rs.1,100. Therefore, the time prescribed for the payment of the said amount of Rs.1,100 expired on 15.11.1975. As the respondent failed to comply with his part of obligation, by notice dated 22.11.1975, the respondent was informed about his failure and was also advised that the entire amount become payable. Thereafter, revenue recovery proceedings, were initiated and the appellant could recover a sum of Rs.1,100 on 18.12.1976. Ex.A-11 is a statement containing the recoveries made from various persons including the respondent which disclosed that after adjusting the sum of Rs.1,100 recovered from the respondent from 18.12.1976, the balance amount due was noted as Rs.9,200. In such circumstances, the appellant came forward with the present suit for the recovery of the sum of Rs.10,100 from the respondent. 6. Learned counsel for the respondent Mr.R.Subramaniam would contend that while applying G.O.233, dated 29.7.1975, it would be sufficient if one month due is paid after ascertainment of the total defaulted amount, inasmuch as there is no time prescribed in G.O.233, dated 29.7.1975. 6. Learned counsel for the respondent Mr.R.Subramaniam would contend that while applying G.O.233, dated 29.7.1975, it would be sufficient if one month due is paid after ascertainment of the total defaulted amount, inasmuch as there is no time prescribed in G.O.233, dated 29.7.1975. With regard to para.4 of the said G.O., the learned counsel submits that a reading of the said paragraph would show that the stipulation of payment of the one month instalment after ascertainment within a period of one month from the date of acceptance of the ascertainment was not applicable to the case of the respondent, inasmuch as the said stipulation was related to persons who had already initiated any litigation and dragged the appellant to Court of law. In other words, learned counsel contended that the said para.4 providing for ascertainment of the default amount due will have to be read along with the provisions relating to withdrawal of civil suit or writ petition if any filed by the defaulters and in the case of the respondent, since no litigation was ever initiated by him, the consequential clause providing for payment of instalment within one month would not apply. I am unable to agree with the contention so raised on behalf of the respondent. A plain reading of para.4 of G.O.233 under Ex.A-8 is very clear and unambiguous. The working out of the concession to be explained has been provided in para.4. In my reading of the said clause, the withdrawal of civil suit or writ petition though did not arise in the case of the respondent would not mean that the other terms of the said clause would be inapplicable. If such a proposition is to be accepted, the very provision contained in para.4 would be wholly unworkable. The concession itself is after ascertainment of the total default amount and on acceptance of the said ascertainment by the defaulter, in the event of the defaulter paying the said one instalment within one month period, the appellant was bound to give up their claim for the entire balance amount. This was the purport and the benefit sought to be conferred under G.O.233, dated 29.7.1975. This was the purport and the benefit sought to be conferred under G.O.233, dated 29.7.1975. In such circumstances it is preposterous to suggest that those who did not initiate any civil suit or writ petition could not avail the very benefit conferred under the said clause and in my considered view, that cannot be and is not the intention of the appellant in issuing the said G.O. If that be the position then the other exhibits, viz., Exs.A-10, A-11 and B-1 go to show that pursuant to G.O.233, the sum payable by the respondent was arrived at a sum of Rs.10,100 that the respondent agreed to pay one instalment of Rs.1,100 in full quit, that such acceptance by the respondent was made on 15.10.1975, that the last date for payment of the said instalment expired on 15.11.1975, that the respondent failed to comply with the said promise agreed upon by him and therefore, the appellant was obliged to resort to revenue recovery proceedings under Exs.B-3 and A-11. Ex.A-11 also discloses that the appellant retained its right to recover the balance amount of Rs.9,200 after giving credit to Rs.1,100 paid by him on 18.12.1976. When this being the position, both the Courts below having failed to apply the terms of the said G.O. under Ex.A-8 and the consequential terms of agreement made between the parties under Exs.A-10 and B-1. The judgments suffer from a serious lacuna warranting interference in the second appeal. 7. Having regard to the conclusion reached above, I am of the opinion that the Courts below committed a grave error in not enforcing the terms of the contract in the proper perspective. The second appeal is therefore allowed. The appellant is entitled for a decree for the suit claim made in O.S.No.139 of 1981. There will be a decree for the suit claim as prayed for. No costs.