NAVJEEVAN CHIT FUND PRIVATE LIMITED Vs. RUPCHAND BHATIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This revision application has been filed by Navjivan Chit Fund Private Limited, the plaintiffs against an order passed on a chamber summons by the learned Judge of the City Civil Court, Bombay, whereby he held that the debt due and payable by Rupchand Bhatia, defendant No. 1, stood extinguished in view of the provisions of the Maharashtra Debt Relief Act, 1975 (Maharashtra Act No. III of 1976) (hereinafter referred to as the Act), and the proceeding for the recovery of the said debt against defendant No. 1 stood abated.

(2.) The plaintiffs floated chit fund schemes in various series. In one of such schemes Rupchand Bhatia, defendant No. 1 was enrolled as a subscriber. Under the scheme, according to the plaintiffs, defendant No. 1 authorised the plaintiffs to bid at the auction of the fund that was to be held on August 2, 1965. On behalf of defendant No. 1 the plaintiffs gave the highest bid of Rs. 1150/-. On guarantee given by defendants Nos. 2 and 3, defendant No. 1 was allowed to lift the chit fund amount of Rs. 5000/- on August 19, 1965. It is the cases of the plaintiffs that certain part payments were made by defendant No. 1 in respect of this amount, and ultimately a sum of Rs. 2400/- was due and outstanding form the amount advanced. As the said amount was not paid by defendant No. 1 the plaintiffs filed a summary suit being Summary Suit No. 529 of 1968, against defendant No. 1, Rupchand Bhatia and two sureties to recover a sum of Rs. 3,024/- consisting of Rs. 2,400/- being the balance from the advance drawn, and 624/- on account of interest upto the date of the filing of the suit. In that Summary Suit, an ex parte decree was passed against defendant No. 1 for the sum of Rs, 3,024/- and costs on August 14, 1974.

(3.) The Act was given retrospective effect with effect from August 22, 1975. It was the contention of defendant No. 1 that in view of the provisions of the said Act, the debt due by him to the plaintiffs stood discharged. Accordingly, he took out a chamber summons on March 1, 1976, for relief that the ex parte decree passed against him on August 14, 1974 against him should be deemed to have been wholly satisfied and/or the claim under this decree should be deemed to have been wholly discharged under the provisions of the Act. That Chamber Summons has been made absolute by the learned Judge of the City Civil Court by his order dated July 13, 1976 inter alia holding that the debt due under the said decree by defendant No. 1 stood extinguish under the provisions of the said Act. The present revision application is filed by the plaintiffs against the said order passed by the learned Judge.