(1.) The sole question involved in this revision petition is relating to interpretation of Section 176 of the Indian Contract Act, 1872. The brief facts are that the petitioner appeared to have pledged certain gold jewels with the respondent herein for a borrowal of certain amount on 10-12-1993; and that on the petitioner failing to repay the borrowed amount within the stipulated period, the respondent Bank was obliged to bring the jewels for auction after giving reasonable notice to the petitioner. The auction is stated to have been held on 20-5-1997. The grievance of the petitioner is, that, inasmuch as, Section 176 contemplates the filing of a suit for recovery of the debt and the period described for filing such a suit being three years, the provision contained in the said section which enables the pawnee to sell the pledged goods on auction after giving reasonable notice for the said sale should also be done within the period prescribed for filing the suit as provided in the earlier part of the said section, I am afraid that such a construction is neither called for nor contemplated under Section 176 of the Indian Contract Act.
(2.) Section 176 of the Indian Contract Act reads as under :
(3.) A reading of the said provision discloses that in the event of pawnor committing default in the payment of the debt within the stipulated time in respect of which the goods were pledged; two avenues are available to the pawnee, either to file a suit against the pawnor upon the debt or the promise by retaining the goods pledged as a collateral security or to resort to the sale of the pledged goods by giving reasonable notice to the pawnor. As per the provision contained in the Act, the two remedies provided to the pawnee are disjunctive in nature. There is absolutely no scope for holding that merely because there is a period prescribed for filing of the suit, it should be held that in the event of the pawnee resorting to the alternate course of sale also, the period prescribed for the suit should be extended.