PERUMAL Vs. CHINNA KUPPANNA GOUNDER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE defendant in O.S. No. 687 of 1979, District Munsif-s Court, Erode, is the petitioner in this civil revision petition. On 12th September, 1974, according to the case of the respondent, the petitioner borrowed a sum of Rs. 2,000 and executed a promissory note in favour of the respondent promising to repay the said sum together with interest thereon at 12 per cent, per annum. and that a sum of Rs. 2,555 remained to be recovered from the petitioner under the promissory note. THE suit was filed by the respondent to recover this amount on the footing that the petitioner is not entitled to the benefits of any of the debt laws. THE petitioner filed a written statement contending that only a sum of Rs. 1,000 had been received by him under the promissory note and therefore, the promissory note was supported by consideration only to that extent and that the entire interest upto 10th September, 1977, had also been paid. THE petitioner further contended that he is not carrying on any business, that he is also not assessed to sales tax and that he is entitled to the benefits of Tamil Nadu Act XVII of 1976. In an additional written statement, the petitioner raised a plea that he is a -debtor" within the meaning of Tamil Nadu Act XIII of 1980 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) as his annual household income is less than Rs. 4,000 and that the suit should, therefore, be dismissed as abated in accordance with the provisions of the Act.

(2.) CONSISTENT with the plea raised that he is entitled to the benefits of the Act, the petitioner appears to have moved the Tahsildar of Bhavani for the issue of a certificate as regards the income and also to the effect that the petitioner is a debtor entitled to the benefits of the Act. Alleging that that application was still pending before the Tahsildar, Bhavani and that the enquiry therein stood posted to 25th September, 1980, the peti tioner prayed for the stay of the trial of the suit O.S. No.687 of 1979 before, the District Munsif-s Court, Erode, till the disposal of the application filed by the petitioner by the Tahsildar, Bhavani. That application was dismissed by the learned District Munsif, Erode, by his order dated 22nd September, 1980, in the following terms:

(3.) SINCE in the civil revision petition important questions touching the scope of the provisions of the Act in relation to the respective jurisdiction of the civil Court as well as that of the Tahsildar under the Act arise and the respondent has not appeared through counsel, it has become necessary to appoint Mr. N. R. Chandran, as amicus curiae to assist the Court.