RAMJEE Vs. MANSA RAM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is a defendant's second appeal. The plaintiff filed a suit for the recovery of Rs. 1800/- plus interest at the rate of 2 per cent month on the basis of a pronote alleged to have been executed by the defendant on 18th July, 1968. The total amount claimed was a sum of Rs. 3096/-The defendant contested the claim and denied that he had borrowed any amount or hafl executed any pronote and receipt in favour of the plaintiff. He pleaded that his signature has been forged and that the plaintiff is not entitled to any relief. The Munsif, Mirzapur upheld the contention of the plaintiff and decreed the suit for the recovery of Rs, 3096/- with interest pendentelite and future at the rate of Rs. 4 per cent per annum. The appeal filed by the defendant was dismissed by the District Judge Mirzapur on 14th December 1974. The findings of the trial Court were confirmed. Hence this second appeal. During the pendency of the second appeal in this Court it appears that an application had been moved under Order 41, Rule 27 C. P. C. by the defendant appellant seeking permission to file a judgment of the IIIrd Additional District Judge, Mirzapur dated 23rd October 1977. THIS judgment had been passed in the execution appeal filed by the defendant with respect to the execution of the decree out of which the present second appeal arises. By this order the District Judge Mirzapur has given the benefit of the Uttar Pradesh Debt Relief Act, 1977 to the judgment-debtor and has held that the debt due to the Decree Holder by the appellant stands discharged. The respondent's counsel has objected to the filing of this additional evi dence on the ground that the judgment being dated 31st October 1977, there is no justification for filing this judgment as late as 31st March 1980. He has argued that the defendant-appellant was not diligent enough to file this judg ment much earlier than what has been done. It is true that the judgment which is sought to be filed now has come in the possession of the defendant-appellant after 31st October 1977 and he could have filed this judgment earlier. But this question can be looked at from two angles. Firstly, even though the filing of the document is belated, yet the second appeal is still pending in this Court. Even if it had been filed earlier, the judgment could only have been considered even after its admission in evidence under Order 41, Rule 27 C. P. C. , at the time of the hearing of the appeal. The judgment had come in the possession of the Court before the hearing of the appeal. My aforementioned observations should not be taken to extend a long rope to the litigant justifying filing of a document even after considerable delay despite the fact that he may be in posses sion of the same much earlier. But in the special circumstances of this particu lar case, I have accepted this document for the second reason, which is to the effect that the filing of the document appears to me to be necessary in order to enable me to pronounce a proper judgment. Order 41, Rule 27 (1) (b) C. P. C. gives ample power to the appellate Court to take on record a document or even examine a witness in order to enable it to pronounce a judgment or for any other substantial cause. The U. P. Debt Relief Act 1977 has been particularly lagislated for the purpose of bringing relief to the marginal farmers etc. who have been over-burdened with the exactions by money lenders in rural areas, who have spared no pains to charge exhorbitant interest from the poor citizens which makes living for them practically impossible. It is to give relief to this poorer section of our society over-burdened with debts, with little or no means to discharge the same, that the U. P. Debt Relief Act 1977 has been brought on the statute book. I would be defying this socio-economic legislation if in these circumstances, I refuse to accept the document, which is in keeping with the spirit of the times. In the exercise of my powers, therefore, under Order 41, Rule 27 (1) (b) C. P. C. I have admitted the judgment of the IIIrd Additional Dis trict Judge, Mirzapur dated 31-10-1977 as additional evidence in appeal. THIS judgment has become final inter parties. From a perusal of the aforesaid judgment I find that the defendant-appellant has been held to be a marginal farmer in execution proceedings flowing out of the original decree under appeal, and a finding has also been recorded therein that the annual income of the defendant-appellant is less than 2400/ -. Therefore, under Section 4 of the U. P. Debt Relief Act, 1977, the entire amount of the debt due to the decree-holder shall stand discharged. As a consequence thereof this appeal abates under Section 5 of the U. P. Debt Relief Act, 1977. Having regard to all the circumstances of the case, parties will bear their costs through out. .