FIRM KHUSHIRAM KALLURAM Vs. NAWAB INAYAT JUNG

JUDGEMENT

(1.) These two appeals arise from an Order of the Jagirdars Debt Settlement Board, Hyderabad, dated 18th June, 1956, under the following circumstances :- Nawab Inayat Jung (hereafter referred to for convenience as the debtor) borrowed a sum of Rs. 10,000 on 25th Khurdad, 1343 fasli, corresponding to 29th April, 1934, from Firm Khushiram Kalluram through Mangilal (hereafter referred to as the creditor). The pro-note provided for interest at 18% per annum. The creditor filed O.S. No. 1112/13 on the Original Side of the erstwhile Hyderabad High Court and obtained a decree for Rs. 19,500 (O.S.) with interest at 6% from the date of suit. That decree was passed on 21st Aban, 1350 fasli. The debtor filed C.A. No. 13/13 which came up for decision before a Division Bench of the erstwhile Hyderabad High Court. The Division Bench modified the decree to the limited extent of reducing the amount of the decree from Rs. 19,500 (O.S.) to Rs. 19,000 (O.S.) but otherwise confirmed the decree passed on the Original Side. This appellate decree was passed on 21st Ardibehist, 1354 fasli. The debtor filed C.A. No. 136 of 1950 before the Supreme Court. The latter passed a decree on 5th October, 1950 modifying the decree passed by the Division Bench to the limited extent of altering the amount of Rs. 19,000 (O.S.) to Rs. 18,857-7-0 (O.S.). The creditor filed execution and recovered sums totalling Rs. 4,735-0-10. Subsequently, on 28th March, 1953, the debtor filed Form No. I under section 11 of the Hyderabad Jagirdars Debt Settlement Act (XII of 1952- hereinafter referred to as the Act) before the Jagirdars Debt Settlement Board for settlement of the debt. On 31st March, 1953, the creditor also filed Form No. III claiming a sum of Rs. 19,485-9-10 (O.S.) as due to him. The Jagirdars Debt Settlement Board passed an Award on 23rd December, 1955, settling the debt at Rs. 15,596-15-0 (O.S.) equivalent to Rs. 13,367-15-2 (I.G.). Subsequently, the debtor filed a petition ror review of the original Award. The creditor contested the petition. Ultimately, the Board by an order, dated 18th June, 1956, reviewed the original Award and passed a revised Award to the extent of Rs. 11,145-4-10 (O.S.) equivalent to Rs. 9,553-1-9 (I.G.). The Board also ordered payment in instalments. Being aggrieved with the revised award, the creditor filed F.A. No. 155/1/1956. The debtor also, not being satisfied, filed F.A. No. 160/1 of 1956.

(2.) The contentions urged on behalf of the creditor in his appeal (F.A. No. 155/1 of 1956) are as follows :-

(3.) In the instant case, the reopening of the award is not sought on the grounds mentioned in section 41 of the Act but on the ground of the modification of the decree by the appellate Court. Such a reopening does not come within the ambit of section 41 of the Act. Apart from section 41, there is no specific provision in the Act for review by the Board of its own order. Shri Narasimhachari, the learned Advocate for the creditor, contends that the provision-contained in section 41 of the Act for reopening the award, in substance, amounts to a provision for review. Even if it be regarded that the provision under section 41 of the Act is in substance a provision for review, the contention of Shri Narasimhachari would in effect amount to saying that the failure to provide under section 41 for review under the circumstances other than those mentioned in section 41 amounts to an implied provision in the Act that there cannot be a review under any other circumstance. Such a contention cannot be accepted because the application of the provisions of Order 47, rule 1, Civil Procedure Code, can be excluded only by an express provision to that effect in the Act, and not by mere implication, by virtue of section 51 of the Act. We do not consider that section 41 has got such a far-reaching result as to exclude review on grounds such as those contemplated in Order 47, rule 1, Civil Procedure Code.