PUNITHAVALLI AMMAL Vs. K P CHIDAMBARA MUDALIAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This civil miscellaneous second appeal arises out of an order passed in execution in B. P. No. 38 of 1947 in O. S. No, 8 of 1942 on the file of the court of the Subordinate Judge, Vellore. The appellant obtained a decree in O. S. No. 8 of 1942 on a promissory note executed by the respondent in his favour. The learned subordinate Judge dismissed the suit applying the provisions of the Madras Act 4 of 1938. In appeal, the District Judge of North Arcot confirmed the decree of the first court. The plaintiff preferred the second appeal to the High Court, S. A. No. 116 of 1944. The High Couit held that the Madras Act 4 of 1938 did not affect the claims on promissory notes and decreed the suit on 8th March 1945. The decreeholder filed E. P. No. 38 of 1947 for executing the decree. After the disposal of the second appeal Government issued an ordinance. Ordinance No. 6 of 1945 Provincial Debts Laws (Temporary Validation Ordinance, 1945) whereunder the Act was made expressly applicable to transactions based on promissory notes. Relying upon this Ordin-ance the judgment-debtor opposed the execution petition and asked for scaling down the decree amount under the Act. The Subordinate Judge-arid in appeal the District Judge held that in view of the Ordinance the decree was liable to be scaled down. The plaintiff preferred the above second appeal.

(2.) The learned counsel for the appellant contended that the Ordinance does not reopen decrees passed before the issue of the said Ordinance whereunder the provisions of the Madras Agriculturists Relief Act were not applied. The Ordinance reads as follows :

(3.) It is then argued by the learned counsel for the respondent that the lower courts had jurisdiction to scale down the decree under Section 19(2) of the Madras Act IV of 1938. Section 19(2) was added to Section 19 by the amending Act 23 of 1948. By reason of that amendment, an application could be filed for amending the decree though passed after the commencement of the Act 4 of 1938. The first objection to this contention is that no application under Section 19(2) of the Madras Agriculturists Belief Act was filed and that the question was raised only in execution. Apart from this technical objection, I am also of opinion that Section19 clause (2) has no application to decrees that had become final before the Madras Act 23 of 1948 came into force. Section 16 of the Madras Act 23 of 1948 limits the scope and its retrospective effect to the category of cases mentioned thereunder. Section 16 of the Act reads :