CHACKO Vs. KOTTAYAM BANK LTD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioners in D.R.P. No. 506 of 1116 on the file of the District Munsiffs Court of Kottayam are the revision petitioners. The D.R.P. was filed by them under S.8, 9 and 15 of the Travancore Debt Relief Act for determining the amount of the debt payable by them to the respondent bank which is a public limited bank. The debt was one payable under the promissory note executed by the petitioners in favour of the bank. The court fixed the amount of the debt as Rs. 1075-14-0. There was deficiency in the deposits made by the petitioners for the first and second instalments. The court allowed them to make up the deficiency on or before 16.11.1117. The deficiency was made up within that time. Subsequently, the petitioners applied to the court on 24.1.1118 for ascertaining the amount payable for the last instalment due on 30.1.1118 and for the issue of a chalan. The amount was ascertained by the court and a chalan was issued for that amount. The petitioners deposited the amount for which the chalan was issued. On the ground that the whole debt was not discharged within the period of two years as provided in the Debt Relief Act, the respondent bank filed a suit as O.S. No. 509 of 1121 for the balance amount due to it. The petitioners contended that the whole debt has been discharged under the provisions of the Debt Relief Act. This contention was repelled and the suit was decreed by the court. In appeal filed by the petitioners the High Court confirmed the decree of the Trial Court but observed that the appellants were at liberty to raise in the Debt Relief Proceedings the question whether they were entitled to concessional payment under the Deft Relief Act.

(2.) Under S.6(2) of the Debt Relief Act read with S. 9 in the case of a transaction with a bank, if the interest charged exceeds 9% per annum, the debtor will be entitled to the benefit of concessional payment only if 80% of the debt is repaid within two years from the date of the commencement of the Act. The petitioners had deposited only 70% of the debt, and the chalan issued by the court was only for that amount. On 19.3.1123 the petitioner applied in the Munsiffs Court for the issue of a chalan for payment of the balance of the 80% of the debt. Accordingly a chalan was issued for Rs. 154-1-0 and the amount was deposited by the petitioners. Thereafter the petitioners applied on 11.10.1950 for a declaration that the debt has been fully discharged and for an order striking off the Debt Relief Petition. That petition was dismissed by the Munsiffs Court. The appeal filed from the order of the Munsiffs Court was dismissed by the District Court. Hence this revision petition.

(3.) The ground urged in the revision petition is that it was on account of the mistake of the court in issuing chalan for a smaller amount that the petitioners failed to deposit within time the whole amount payable by them and that they are therefore entitled to have the delay condoned.