VENKATACHALARN CHETTIAR Vs. ADAIKAPPA CHETTIAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This civil revision petition has been filed against the order of the learned Subordinate Judge, Devakottai, dated 20-10-1978 dismissing E. A. No. 170 of 1978 in E. P. 17 of 1975. The execution petition was filed for realisation of the costs awarded by tins court in App No. 640 of 1969. The petitioner herein filed the execution application in question for stay under Section 16 of the Tamil Nadu Ordinance 5 of 1978 which has now been replaced by Tamil Nadu Act 40 of 1978. The learned Subordinate Judge was of the view that the provisions of the Ordinance could be invoked by a person who is entitled to scale down the decree or other benefits conferred under the Act and that, as regards costs, the petitioner was not entitled to claim any relief under the said Ordinance. It is this order which is now challenged by the petitioner in the present civil revision petition.

(2.) As already mentioned, Ordinance 5 of 1978 has been now replaced by Tamil Nadu Act 40 of 1978. There is no dispute that we are now concerned only with the Act, as it is passed, as the Ordinance has been repealed. This Act has been passed for giving relief to certain indebted persons in the State of Tamil Nadu. The definition of the word, 'debt' in See. 2 (2) of the said Act runs as follows -

(3.) The learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the expression 'debt' as defined in Section 2 (2) of the Tamil Nadu Act 40 of 1978 would cover the liability in respect of costs, also, as It would be a liability which has been decreed. The learned counsel drew my attention to a judgment of Ramaprasada Rao, J. as he then was, in Govindasami v. Balakrishna Reddiar, ((1977) 2 Mad LJ 466). The contention of the learned counsel was that the provisions of the present Act, namely, Tamil Nadu Act 40 of 1978, were in pari materia with those, in Tamil Nadu Act 15 of 1976, so that the said decision would have to be applied, to the present case.