NARASIYANA VENKAPPA Vs. PTHIMMAPPA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is an execution appeal. The appellant is the legal representative of the first judgment-debtor. The respondents decree-holders filed Ex. Case No. 440/50-51 on the file of the Munsiff, sagar, to exe-cue the decree obtained by them in O. S. No. 145 of 1929-30 on the file of that Court. The execution application was resisted by the judgment-debtor on several grounds. His objections were overruled. He went up in appeal to the learned subordinate Judge, Shimoga, in R. A. No. 15 of 1952-53. In the appeal also he failed. Meanwhile he died and his legal representative has come up in second appeal. In this appeal also several grounds were taken resisting the execution case. Only one of those grounds is pressed before me. It is contended that the judgment-debtor had Filed an application under Section 4 of the Debt Conciliation Board Act which shall be hereinafter called 'the Act' in Debt Conciliation case No. 15 of 1946-47 before the Debt Conciliation Board, Sagar. The said Board shall be hereinafter called 'the Board'. Notice under Section 10(1) of the 'the Act' was taken to the decree-holders and they were duly served. They failed to file their statements as required by Section 10(1) of the Act. Consequently 'the Board' gave declaration duly discharging the debt in question. The declaration in question was purported to be made under Section 10(2) of the Act. This order has been made on 3-2-1948. It is urged that the said order is conclusive and binding on the parties and that the Civil Court has no jurisdiction to re-open the matter. As stated before the courts below have rejected this contention, mainly on the ground that the debt in question had been admitted by the judgment debtor in his petition filed before the Debt Conciliation Board. Hence the Debt Conciliation Board had no jurisdiction to give the declaration in question.

(2.) Under Section 10(1) of the Act, on the presentation of an application by the debtor and after examining the debtor, if the Board is of opinion that it is desirable to attempt to effect a settlement between him and his creditors, a notice shall be issued and served or published in the manner prescribed, calling upon every creditor of the debtor to submit a statement of debts owed to such creditor by the debtor. Such statement shall be in writing and shall be signed and verified in the manner prescribed by the Code of Civil Procedure, for signing and verifying claims and shall be submitted to the Board within two months from the date of service or publication of the notice as the case may be,

(3.) Section 10(2) of the Act is as follows:-" Every debt of which a statement is not submitted to the Board in compliance with the provisions of Sub-section (1) shall be deemed for all purposes and all occasions to have been duly discharged." From these it will he seen that on the failure by the creditor to file a statement as required under Section 10(1) of the Act, there will be a statutory discharge. There is no provision in the Act which empowers the Board to pass an order of discharge. Hence the order passed by the Board on 3-2-1948 may be ignored as being superfluous. The only question that has to be considered is as to whether there is a statutory discharge in view of the respondents' failure to comply with the requirements of Section 10(1) of the Act.