BAL KISHAN DAS Vs. JHANUMAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The facts relevant for the decision of Civil Revision No. 217-D of 1953, First Appeal from Order No. 13-D of 1954 and Execution First Appeal No. 137-D of 1954 are briefly stated as follows:

(2.) On 28-10-1947 one Jhunnu Mal who is alleged to have been carrying on business in Lahore mortgaged his property situated in Delhi with Balkishan Das for Rs. 40,000/-. The mortgage executed in this transaction was admittedly a simple mortgage. Balkishan Das filed a suit on the basis of this mortgage and on 1-41950 the Court passed a decree and ordered Jhunnu Mal to pay the decretal amount in instalments. It appears that Jhunnu Mal made defaults in the payment of these Instalments and on 6-10-1950 Balkishan Das filed an application for execution of his decree in the Court of Shri P. N. Thukral. After certain proceedings had been taken the judgment-debtor applied to the executing Court on 15-1-1952 under Section 5, Displaced Persona (Debts Adjustment) Act, 1951. Shri P. N. Thukral framed two preliminary issues with a view to find whether the judgment-debtor was a displaced person or not and whether the decretal debt in question was a debt within the Act or not. After taking evidence by his order dated 24-11-1952 Shri P. N. Thukral held that he had no jurisdiction to entertain the petition, but on the merits he gave his findings that Jhunnu Mal was a displaced person but that the debt was not a debt within the Debts Adjustment Act. While this petition was pending the judgment- debtor made another application under Section 5 and this time this application was made to a Tribunal under the Act and was made over to Shri Banwari Lal. While this petition was pending the judgment-debtor made a third application under the same section on 25-7-1952 but that application was dismissed on 1311- 1952 on the ground that a previous application was still pending before a Tribunal. In the application of 6-2-1952 an issue was framed reading:

(3.) It appears that later on Balkrishan Das decree-holder filed another application and the Tribunal framed the following issue arising out of this new petition: