RAM SWAROOP Vs. SUA LAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS second appeal by the plaintiffs raises a question oi interpretation of Section 52 of the Bombay Agricultural Debtor's Relief Act, 1947 (Act No. XXVIII of 1947), which will hereinafter be referred to as "the Act". The facts riving rise to this question may be briefly narrated in the following manner.

(2.) DEFENDANT-RESPONDENT Sualal executed a 'khata' for Rs. 355/9/9 on 21-11-50 in favour of the plaintiffs. On 14th January, 1952, plaintiff Ram Swaroop made an application under Section 4 (1) of the Act, as extended to the erstwhile State of aimer, in the Court of the Debt Settlement Officer, Tehsil Aimer, for adjustment of the suit debt, it appears that ultimately the case came up for disposal before the extra Debt Settlement Officer, Katri, who determined the amount of debt in the manner provided in the Act and made an award on 24-7-59. Dissatisfied with the order of the Debt Settlement Officer the debtor Sualal filed appeal in the Court of the District Judge, Aimer, who by his Judgment dated 29th September, 1961, allowed the appeal and set aside the award made by the Debt Settlement Officer. Thereafter the plaintiffs filed the present suit on 22-2-62 in the Court of Munsif, kakri, on the basis of the 'khata' dated 21st November, 1950 for Rs. 736/13/9 and claimed exclusion of the period from 14-1-52 to 29-9-61 during which proceedings had been prosecuted under the Act. The suit was resisted by the defendant inter alia on the ground that it was barred by limitation, as under Section 52 of the Act. the plaintiff was not entitled to exclusion of the period during which the proceedings in respect of the suit debt were prosecuted under the Act. The defendant's plea found favour with the trial court, which dismissed the suit aggrieved by the judgment and decree of the trial court the plaintiffs filed appeal, but the same was dismissed by the learned Senior Civil and Additional Sessions judge, Ajmer, by his judgment dated 30th April, 1965. Consequently, the plaintiffs have come in second appeal to this Court.

(3.) THE plaintiffs' plea for exclusion of that period during which the proceeding in respect of the suit debt were prosecuted under the Act has been negatived by the courts below on two grounds (1) that Ram Swaroop, who had made the application under Section 4 of the Act before the Debt Settlement Officer, was a minor on the date the application was filed and consequently it will be deemed to be no application in the eye of law; (2) that the application under the Act was dismissed in appeal not on the ground that Sualal was not a debtor within the meaning of the term given in the Act, but because the debt in question was incurred after coming Into force of the Act and, therefore, the provisions of the Act had no application to it. In this view of the matter the plaintiff's suit has been dismissed as barred by limitation.