GEEVARGHESE GEORGE Vs. K P ABRAHAM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner is the judgment debtor in a suit for realisation of money. The decree debt is above Rs. 10,000/-. When execution was sought, he filed E. A. 4 of 1978 requesting the Court to make a reference under O.46 R.1 of the Code of Civil Procedure. The petitioner stated that his annual income is less than Rs. l,000/-and that the debt stood extinguished under S.3 of Ordinance 1 of 1977. He contended that the subsequent enactment of Act 17 of 1977 could not revive a debt which stood extinguished and also that S.2(4)(i) of Act 17 of 1977 violated Art.14 of the Constitution in as much as it differentiated between debtors like him whose debt exceeded Rs. 3000/- and other debtors. He also contended that the above provision is violative of his fundamental right under Art.19(1)(g), 20 and 31 of the Constitution. The executing Court held without any discussion that the petition was not maintainable and dismissed the same. The revision petition is filed against the said order.

(2.) There is no doubt that the Court below should have passed a speaking order. The order that is now challenged does not show that the Court has applied its mind on the points involved. In such cases the proper thing would have been to remand the petition to the Court below with a direction to write a proper order. But since the revision petition has to fail ,on the merits, no purpose will be served if I follow the above procedure. That may only protract the proceedings. I shall, therefore, dispose of the petition on the merits.

(3.) The argument put forward on behalf of the petitioner is that the case falls under S.113 of the Code of Civil Procedure and the Court should have made a reference as contemplated in that provision. S.113 CPC. reads: