SUNDARAM Vs. VARADAIYAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THERE is an unusual delay in representing the papers. Instead of troubling the respondent, on the question of condonation of delay in representing the papers, we wanted to satisfy ourselves about the merits of the case, as the appeal has been filed in time. THERE is a delay of 386 days in representing the papers. Hence the delay is condoned. We have heard the learned counsel for appellant on the merits of the appeal.

(2.) THE one and the only contention urged before us is that the appellant is entitled to the benefits of the Tamil Nadu Debt Relief Act, 1972 (Tamil Nadu Act 38 of 1972) hereinafter referred to as the Act, therefore, he filed an application under Section 15 of the Act, that on the date of filing of the application the decree holder had not drawn the amount and the decree had no been fully executed. On the contrary, it was the contention of the decree holder that the application was filed only on 21.4.1973; that before that date the decree was executed; that in execution of the decree the property of the judgment-debtor was sold in Court auction; that the auction purchaser deposited the amount; that the sale was confirmed; the possession was delivered and that the satisfaction of the decree was recorded, therefore, there was no decree and no debt subsisting on the date the application was filed.

(3.) IN this background, the only point that arises for consideration is as to whether on the date the application was filed by the appellant under Sec. 15 of the Act the debt was subsisting. The Act was published in the Tamil Nadu Government Gazette on 15th December, 1972. Clause (2) of Section 2 states: -