SHATRUGHAN Vs. BALIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is a writ application by Shatrughan under Art. 226 of the Constitution against an order of the District Judge. Jaipur, dated the 3rd May, 1963, upholding an order of the Munsiff, Jaipur District, Jaipur, as a Debt Relief Court, dated the 24th March, 1962, by which the latter had ordered that the claim of the petitioner do stand discharged as against the debtors Balia and Dalia who were applicants before that Court.

(2.) THE material facts are these. It appears that Shatrughan had dealings in grain with respondents Balia and Dalia and two other persons Bhura and Narain who are not before us. THEse dealings are said to have commenced some time in 1946. On the 25th May, 1952, all the four debtors had obviously gone into account with the petitioner and found that grain weighing 501 Maunds as specified in the writing Ex. 1 was due from them to the said Shatrughan and they also agreed by that writing to repay it in a certain manner which is also described at length therein but which we need not repeat here for our present purposes. It further appears that after the writing Ex. 1 had been executed that is thumb marked by all of them the debtors failed to pay one instalment for the Rabi crop of Smt. 2011 whereupon the petitioner Shatrughan filed a suit against them for the recovery of Rs. 160/-being the price thereof. This suit was decreed by the small cause Court, Jaipur, on the 15th July, 1955, vide Ex. 3. According to the petitioner, this decree was fully satisfied by the debtors. Respondents Nos. 1 and 2 and their co-debtors further failed to pay the instalments which had thereafter fallen due. Consequently the petitioner instituted another suit against them in the court of the Civil Judge, Jaipur District, Jaipur for a sum of Rs. 3579/9/- being the price of the grain together with the interest due thereon. This suit was filed on the 16th December, 1959. During the pendency of that suit, the said respondents made an application under S. 6 of the Rajasthan Relief of Agricultural Indebtedness Act, 1957 (Act No. 28 of 1957, hereinafter called the Act) in the court of the Civil Judge, Jaipur District, Jaipur as the debt relief court. In this petition, the respondents claimed that they were agriculturists and inter alia stated that the petitioner Shatrughan had filed a suit against them and two others for the recovery of Rs. 3579/9/- in the court of the Civil Judge, himself and that there was no other claim outstanding against the respondents. This application was filed on the 8th October, 1960, and it seems that it was returned to them for presentation to the proper court by an order of the Civil Judge, Jaipur District, Jaipur (as debt relief court) on the 27th January, 1961, and another application to the same effect was filed before the Munsiff Jaipur District, Jaipur, (as debt relief court) on the 28th January, 1961. As in the previous application, a prayer was also made in the subsequent one that an inquiry be made into the claim of the creditor and suitable relief be granted to the respondents in accordance with the Act. After a notice was issued to the creditor Shatrughan under S. 7 of the Act, he filed his statement of claim under S. 8 (1) of the Act on the 13th February, 1962. THEreupon an objection was immediately raised on behalf of the respondents that as the creditor had not produced a full and true statement of the claim of all previous transactions between him and them leading to the claim nor his account-books or copies thereof, the same may be held to have been discharged under S. 8 (2) of the Act. This contention seems to have been raised as a preliminary objection and the court fixed the case for arguments thereon for the 24th March, 1962. On the last-mentioned date, it heard the arguments and held that the petitioner's claim stood discharged. In coming to this conclusion, the learned munsiff found that no statement of account had been filed by the creditor nor had he filed the documents or account-books or copies thereof and he further held that in case the latter had been lost as stated by the creditor, still it was obligatory on him to furnish the statement of account of all previous transactions between him and the debtor leading to the claim of 501 maunds of grain without which it would not be possible to determine the debt at all. According to the learned Munsiff, the creditor was under a legal obligation to show what was the quantum of the original debt and how it had swelled from time to time. THE learned Munsiff further went on to observe that unless such a statement of claim was filed, "the question of taking evidence of the parties does not arise. THE question of taking the evidence of the parties will arise only when the debts due on different dates have been shown by the creditor and their validity and subsisting character of the debt has to be determined under S. 9 of the Act. Had this not been the meaning and object of this Act. then in every case the creditor will file this application that his account books have been lost and he cannot furnish the data on which the original amount has given and how much amount was given. " This is how he sums up his findings on the whole case : "in view of all that has been discussed above, I am inclined to hold that as the applicant (creditor) has failed to furnish any statement of account leading to claim as required under S. 8 (2) of the Act, his claim is hereby discharged and he is therefore not entitled to get any relief from this court. " Against this order, the petitioner went in revision to the learned District Judge, Jaipur District, Jaipur, but without any success. This has led to the present writ application.

(3.) FROM the discussion that we have made above, it is manifest that the tribunals below have fallen into serious and obvious errors of law which are sufficient to attract our certiorari jurisdiction.