AMARENDRA NATH GHOSE Vs. NILRATAN BAIDYA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) These three rules have been obtained by the creditors in an appln. under the Bengal Agricultural Debtors' Act for a settlement of four debts. The appln. was made on 15-2-1939 & the order on which these rules have been issued was made on 6-8-1948. These two dates will show that this matter which is supposed to be decided speedily has not yet been decided although more than ten years have elapsed. I am constrained to say with great respect that this piece of legislation which is designed to give a speedy remedy is one of the most confused pieces of legislation I have had to deal with & far from giving a speedy remedy it has had the effect of prolonging proceedings to an unbelievable extent. This is due not only to the defective nature of the Act but also to the fact that the persons who administer this Act are not versed in law & yet are expected to deal with fairly intricate questions of law.

(2.) I shall now state a number of events which have taken place in this litigation. As stated before on 15-2-1939 there was this appln. for the settlement of four debts. The debts were settled on 9-6-1940 by the Debt Settlement Board On 20-9-1940, four appeals were allowed by the Munsif acting as an Appellate Officer. The appeals were by the creditors & the Munsif remanded the cases to the Board for re-consideration with certain directions. On 27-2-1942 the Board again settled the debts. On 2-5-1942 that order was varied & the amounts of the dues were reduced. On 19-6-1942, an appln. for review was made by the debtors. This appln. was rejected on 20-8-1942. The award was registered on 4-11-1942. On 30-4-1943 there was an appln. filed before the Sub-divisional Officer who was the Appellate Officer. This appln. was treated as an appeal by the Sub-divisional Officer & I shall have to decide what the nature of the appln. is. This appln. or appeal, whatever it may be, was dismissed on 1-5-1943. The debtors then applied to the Collector for permission to file an appln. for review before the Board. This was on 26 5-1943 & sanction was granted. On 23-7-1943 the review appln. was moved before the Board & on 28-5 1946 it was rejected by the Debt Conciliation Officer who was then acting as the Board. On 30-6-1948 there was an appeal to the Appellate Officer from the order of the Debt Conciliation Officer. This appeal was dismissed. On 6-8-1948 there was a motion before the Dist. J. & the Dist. J. set aside the order of the Appellate Officer & remanded the case to the Debt Settlement Board for re-consideration. Against this order the present rules have been obtained.

(3.) Learned Advocate appearing in support of the rules takes two grounds. First, he says that as there was already an order made on a review on 20-8-1942 there could be no further appln. for review. He contends that the subsequent review which was entertained by the Board by reason of sanction granted by the Collector was not entertainable & that all the subsequent orders are without jurisdiction. His contention is that the award as it stood after the rejection of the review on 20-8-1942 should be maintained. For this argument he relies upon the provisions of Rule 91D framed under the Bengal Agricultural Debtors' Act.