GOVINDBHAI HEMATBHAI PATEL Vs. PRAJAPATI MAGANLAL TRIKAMJI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The facts giving rise to this petition are not many and are also not in much dispute. The respondent moved the Debt Settlement Officer at Surendranagar under Section 6(1) of the Gujarat Rural Debtors' Relief Act, 1976 (the 'Act' for brief) for discharge of his debt in the sum of Rs. 11,900/- payable to the present petitioner. It was registered as Debt Settlement Case No. Grachara - Vadhvan - 11. By his judgment and order passed on 8th April 1980, the Debt Settlement Officer held that the respondent was a rural artisan and his income was Rs.2400/- per annum and that he was indebted to the petitioner to the tune of Rs. 11900/-. After giving these findings in favour of the respondent herein, the Debt Settlement Officer ordered discharge of the respondent from his debt payable to the petitioner herein. A copy of the judgment and order passed by the Debt Settlement Officer on 8th April 1980 is annexed as Annexure A to this petition. The aggrieved petitioner herein thereupon invoked the appellate jurisdiction of the Appellate Authority under Section 13 of the Act. It was registered as Appeal No. 291 of 1980. A copy of the memo of appeal preferred by the petitioner herein before the Appellate Authority is annexed as Annexure 'B' to this petition. It appears that different dates were given for hearing of the appeal. The hearing however could not be proceeded with for the reasons stated in the appellate judgment. The last date on which the hearing of the appeal was fixed was on 29th October 1980. The petitioner herein could not remain present at the time of hearing on the ground of his sickness and therefore he applied for an adjournment. It appears that no adjournment was granted. In the meantime, it appears that the petitioner herein submitted his application that the documentary evidence annexed therewith may be read as the additional evidence in the appellate proceeding. By the judgment and order passed on 12th October 1980 in Appeal No. 291 of 1980, the Appellate Authority dismissed the present petitioner's appeal. A copy of the appellate judgment is annexed as Annexure C to this petition. The aggrieved petitioner has thereupon invoked the extraordinary jurisdication of this Court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India.

(2.) It clearly transpires from the judgment and order at Annexure 'A' to this petition that the trial of the case was concluded on 25th February 1980. However in the next line it has been observed that the parties were given an opportunity to produce further documentary evidence thereafter. It appears that the respondent herein produced certain documentary evidence after the trial came to be concluded on 25th February 1980 as aforesaid. It is the present petitioner's grievance that this additional documentary evidence was produced by the respondent herein in the proceeding before the Debt Settlement herein in the proceeding before the Debt Settlement Officer behind his back. It is the present petitioner's grievance that he did not get an opportunity to meet with the case sought to be established by the respondent by means his further evidence produced before the Debt Settlement Officer after 25th February 1980. The petitioner herein made a specific grievance in that regard in para 4(10) of his memo of appeal before the Appellate Authority. It is unfortunate that the Appellate Authority has not taken into consideration the present petitioner's grivence in that regard clearly stated in his memo of appeal at Annexure B to this petition in his absence at the time of hearing of the appeal on the alleged ground of his indisposition at the relevant time. This Court has, therefore, been deprived of scrutiny of the case by the Appellate Authority from this angle.

(3.) The tenor of the judgment of the Debt Settlement Officer at Annexure A clearly shows that the present petitioner was not given an opportunity to meet with the further evidence produced by the respondent herein on 20th March 1980. Simply because the Debt Settlement Officer has taken on record the evidence in serial order as produced by the parties, it cannot be said that the present petitioner was given an opportunity to meet with the further evidence produced by the present respondent on 20th March 1980. This becomes abundantly and eloquently clear from appreciation of the evidence made by the Debt Settlement Officer from para 11 onwards in his judgment and order at Annexure A to this petition.