HANGAMABAI Vs. ZAMSING DEOSING

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The question that arises for determination in this Full Bench is whether an application presented by a creditor under Section 4 of the Bombay Agricultural Debtors Relief Act was in time. The creditor wanted to make an application to the Erandol Court in East Khandesh District and he sent the application by registered post from Jal-gaon on 31-7-1947. The application reached the Court on 1-8-1947. Under Section 4 the application had to be presented to the Erandol Court before 18- 1947. The view taken by the trial Court was that the application was in time. The District Court took the view that inasmuch as the' application reached the Court on 1-8-1941, it was out of time and the District Court therefore dismissed the application. The creditor came in revision to this Court, and Mr. Justice Gajendragadkar and Mr. Justice Shah have referred this question to the Full Bench as there is a conflict of decisions on this point.

(2.) Now, it is well settled, as we shall pre-' sently point out, that an addressee may request a sender to send a particular communication or a particular document through the post or he may authorise him to do so. In either' case by reason of the request or the authority the post office would be constituted the agent of the addressee, and when the' sender delivers communication or the document to the post office, in the eye of the law the delivery would be to the addressee. If this principle is well established as between private parties, there is no reason why the same principle should not apply when a Court authorises a party to present a particular application through the post. If there is such authority, then the party when it makes the application through the post in the eye of the law makes the application to the Court itself, because under those circumstances the post office is the agent of the Court duly authorised to receive the application. It is with this background that we must look at the provisions of the Bombay Agricultural Debtors Relief Act in order to determine whether under the relevant sections and the rules framed under the Bombay Agricultural Debtors Relief Act the post office was constituted the agent of the applicant.

(3.) Section 4(1) provides for the time within which an application has to be made by & debtor or a creditor, and Sub-section (2) provides: "Every application made under Sub-section (1) shall be in writing in the prescribed form and shall be signed, verified and presented in the prescribed manner." The manner has been prescribed by the rules framed by Government under Section 55 of the Act, and when we turn to the relevant rule, vie., Rule 4, the mode of presentation is prescribed in that rule, and Rule 4 provides that the applications shall be presented to the Court during office hours by the applicants personally or shall be sent by registered post addressed to the Court and shall be received by the .Civil Judge or by such person as may be authorised by him to receive them. Therefore, it is clear that Rule 4 prescribed two modes of presentation of an application. The one mode is presentation to the Court itself and the other mode is sending the application by registered post. It is equally clear that the rule authorises both modes of presentation. Whether the applicant presents the application by one mode or the other, he is presenting the application in a mode authorised by the rule. Therefore, on a plain reading of Rule 4 it is difficult to understand how it can be contended that this rule does not authorise the applicant, whether he is a debtor or a creditor, to present his application by registered post. That being the proper construction of Rule 4, in view of the principle we have just enunciated the post office would be constituted the agent of the Court. If the post office is the agent, then when the petitioner, the creditor; presented his application through registered post on July 31, 1947, it was presented to the Court in the mode prescribed and authorised by Rule 4.