ASHALAL MAGANLAL SHAH Vs. PUNJAJI GHALAJI CHOUDHARI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THESE four revision applications raise the same question. The Bombay Agricultural Debtors Belief Act was made applicable to Mehsana on 1 August, 1949, and the last day for making an application under Section 4 (1) was 31 January, 1950. In three applications the creditors posted their applications under Section 4 (1) on 31 January, 1950, and in one case on 30 January, but the applications were received by the Court on 1 February, 1950, and the Court below has taken the view that these applications are out of time.

(2.) RULE 4 of the Bombay Agricultural Debtors Relief Rules provides that the applications under Section 4 (1) shall be presented to the Court during office hours by the appellant personally or shall be sent by registered post addressed to the Court and shall be received by the Court or Judge or by such person as may be authorised by him to receive them. In my opinion on a true construction of this rule, it is clear that the Legislature has constituted the post office as its agent foj the purpose of receiving these applications. It has clearly nominated cither the Court or the post office as the receiving authority, and therefore if the post office received these applications by the time mentioned in the Act, the applications were presented in time and were not out of time. The same view has been taken in -- 'kirloskar Bros. Ltd. v. Commr. of Income Tax, Bombay', AIR 1952 Bom 306 (A), where myself and Mr. Justice Tendolkar were considering an Income-tax Re-ference, and we pointed out that in a case where the receiver nominates the post office as his agent, the posting of the letter constitutes the receipt of the letter by the receiver at the time and at the place where the letter is posted. In this ease the applications were posted within time and were posted at the proper place, and if this decision is correct, then undoubtedly the applications made by these creditors are within time. Mr. Sheth very fairly has drawn my attention to a judgment of a Division Bench reported in -- 'krishnalal Maneklal v. Tuljabhai Har-govandas'. Civil Revn. Appln. No. 620 of 1947, D/-25-11-1948 (Bom) (B ). This decision has taken a contrary view. This decision has not been reported, and as both judgments are judgments of Division Bench Courts, it is open to me to prefer one to the other. For the reasons I have just mentioned I prefer the decision in -- 'kirloskar Bros. ' case (A)'. Mr. Sheth also drew my attention to the fact that the Patna High Court in -- 'ram Gopal v. B. and N.-W. Ry. Co. '. AIR 1927 Pat 241 (C), has taken the same view as has been taken in --'kirloskar Bros. ' case (A)'. That is also a judgment of a Division Bench.

(3.) THE result is that the revision applications will be allowed. Rule made absolute. No order as to costs.