KARAM CHAND Vs. HAKAM SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is an appeal against the appellate decree of the District Judge, Hoshiarpur, dismissing the appeal against the decree of the Senior Subordinate Judge, whereby the plaintiff's suit was dismissed.

(2.) On the basis of a mortgage deed dated the 19th of May 1933, for a sum of Rs. 1,200/-, the plaintiff brought a suit. During the course of the trial, the debtor made an application to the Debt Conciliation Board who on the 16th of October, 1946, passed an order for stay of proceedings in the civil Court. The plaintiff on the same day made an application to the Court that the Board had no jurisdiction in the matter on the ground, (1) that the defendants had not admitted any debt due to the plaintiff and (2) that he (the plaintiff) had applied to the Board stating that he was not prepared to have any kind of conciliation with the defendants. On the 7th of February 1947, the Board passed an order for the discharge of the debt and on the 17th the plaintiff put in a fresh application in the Court reiterating his previous objections and also asked that the suit be proceeded with. The trial Court dismissed the plaintiff's suit holding that the debt had been validly discharged and this on appeal was affirmed by the District Judge.

(3.) The counsel for the appellant has submitted that the debt could not be ordered to be discharged because the Board had no jurisdiction to discharge it under the circumstances of this case. The plaintiff had been called upon by the Conciliation Board to file documents in support of his debts and in support he had produced a certified copy of his mortgage deed. The debt could only be deemed to be discharged if he had not complied with the orders of the Board. Under section 14(1) of the Punjab Relief of Indebtedness Act, a creditor who is called upon under section 13 to make a statement of his debts has to furnish along with such statement full particulars of all such debts and to produce all documents including entries in the books of account on which he relies to support his claim. The plaintiff in this case relied on the mortgage deed to support his debt. This mortgage deed was based on a decree which was obtained by the plaintiff against the defendants. The plaintiff also applied to the Board that he had applied for a copy of the decree which he would produce as soon as it was received, but they refused to give him any extension of time although he produced the receipt of the application which he had made.