P VENKATESWARLU Vs. B KOTAMMA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The respondent in these Civil Revision Petitions filed O.S.No.35 of 1982 on the file of the learned Principal District Munsif at Addanki against the petitioner for recovery of an amount said to be due on a pronote. At the stage when the matter was posted for arguments, the petitioner herein filed I.A.No.359 of 1989 under Section 151 C.P.C. to reopen the suit to enable him to take the plea that under the Andhra Pradesh Agricultural Indebtedness (Relief) Act, 1987(A.P.Act 45 of 1987) hereinafter referred to as 'the Act', the suit had abated as he was a 'small farmer' by amending the written statement, and also I.A.No.360 of 1989 under Order 6 Rule 17 read with Sections 94 and 151 C.P.C. for amendment of the written statement by adding para 6 (a) as follows:-

(2.) After hearing the learned counsel for the petitioner as well as the learned counsel for the respondent, I am of the view that these C.R.Ps. have to be allowed. The Act is a beneficial piece of legislation for the purpose of alleviating the lot of certain categories of debtors and Section 2 of the Act declares that it is for giving effect to the policy under Article 46 of the Constitution i.e., promoting the economic interests of the weaker Sections of the people and to protect them from all forms of exploitation and social injustice. Sub-section (1) of Section 3 of the Act provides that notwithstanding anything in certain enacments, "with effect on and from the commencement of this Act, every debt borrowed or incurred during the period between the 29th December, 1976 and the date of such commencement including interest, if any, owing to any creditor by an agricultural labourer, a rural artisan or a small farmer shall be deemed to be wholly discharged.". Sub-section (2) of Section 3 of the Act is as follows:-

(3.) The learned Principal District Munsif has rejected the applications on the ground that they could have been filed earlier and also by examining the merits. Enquiring into the merits of the proposed amendments arises if and when the amendments are permitted and not before. In Chintaparthi Venkataramana Reddy vs. Nallam Rajamma this Court has held that the Court has no power to consider the merits of the proposed amendment at the stage of the consideration of the question whether the amendment should be allowed and that Rule 17, Order VI confers a wide discretion upon the Courts to allow the amendment of the pleadings at any stage of the proceedings and even after the case has been adjourned for arguments. In M/s. Ganesh Trading Co. vs. Moji Ram the Supreme Court observed as follows:-