V. RAMAKRISHNAN Vs. KANDASWAMI THEVAR AND ORS.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The question that arises in this civil revision petition is, whether under Sec. 15 of Act XXXVIII of 1972 any period of limitation is fixed for an application by a judgment -debtor to be tiled for amending a decree. In this case the judgment -debtor tiled an application under Sec. 16 of the Act for stay of the decree on 8th October 1973. The anal decree in the mortgage suit came to be passed as early as 14th June 1972. If the contention of the decree -holder that the judgment debtors remedy to the an application to amend decree under Sec. 15 is barred on the footing that under that Sec. an application to amend the decree can be filed only within six months from the date of publication of the Act, is correct, then the judgment -debtor would not be a person entitled to the benefits of the Act. In that case his application under Sec. 16 for stay would not be maintainable, for that Sec. says only a person who is entitled to the benefits of the Act call apply for stay. But the question is whether on publication by a judgment -debtor under Sec. 15 for amending the decree ought to be filed within six months of the date of the publication of the Act. The Act itself was published on 15th December 1972. The application under Sec. 16 in which the present question has been raised, as I have said earlier, come to be filed only on 8th October 1973, that is beyond a period of six months.

(2.) On behalf of the decree -holder it is contended that the period of six months mentioned in the above Sec. applies to an application not only by the decree -holder but also by a judgment -debtor. But a true grammatical construction of the Sec. would go to show that the clause within six months from the date of publication of this Act applies only to an application of the decree -holder and not to an application by a judgment -debtor or a member of a joint family in the case of a joint family debt. The significant fact to be noted is that after the words on the application of a decree -holder there is no comma. That means the subsequent clause within six months from the date of publication of this Act has to be taken on to the clause on the application of the decree -holder and the six months period would not be attracted to the earlier clause in the said Sec. which deals with application by judgment -debtors or by the members of a joint family in case of joint family. In this view, the order of the Court below granting stay, even though the application under Sec. 16 came to be filed more than six months after the publication of the Act till which period no application under Sec. 15 having been filed, is correct. The civil revision petition fails and the same is dismissed. No costs.