LADHU SAHA Vs. CHAMPALAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is a revision application by the defendants against an order of the Civil Judge, Merta holding that the damages for breach of contract are not covered by 'debt' as defined in Section 2(c) of the Rajasthan Relief of Agricultural Indebtedness Act 1957.

(2.) THE defendants entered into a contract with the plaintiffs for the supply of 85000/ - bricks for a price of Rs. 1000/ - by. Chet Sudi 15, Section 2017 The price was paid in advance. It was stipulated that on the failure of the defendants to supply the bricks by the due dated they will have to pay damages to the plaintiffs at the rate of Rs. 20/ - per thousand bricks in addition to interest at 12 percent per annum on the sum of Rs. 1000/ -. The defendants faild to supply the bricks and the present suit for the recovery of a sum of Rs. 2300/ - by way of damages and interest was instituted in the court of the Civil Judge, Merta. The defendants filed an application under Section 6 of the Act for the abatement of the suit on the ground that they are agriculturists. This application was dismissed by the trial court on the ground that the damages claimed were not 'debt' within the meaning of the Act. Reliance was placed on a decision of this Court in Manakchand v. Kaney Singh 1965 R.L.W. 224. That decision has no application to the facts of the present case. The question which arose in that case was whether an agreement to sell a house was a transaction relating to a loan which could be reopened under Section 10 of the Act.

(3.) HENCE the use of the phrase 'whether ascertained or to be ascertained' does not necessarily lead to the conclusion that the Legislature; intended to include unliquidated damages in the term 'debt'.