PARMANANDA PRUSTY Vs. INDRAMANI MAHANTY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is a decree-holder's second appeal from concurrent orders of the Courts, below in an execution matter. The decree-holder obtained an ex parte decree against the judgment-debtor, and this decree was obtained long before the Orissa Money-Lenders Act came into force. After the passing of that Act, the judgment- debtor applied for a scaling down of the rate of interest, and this was allowed by the learned Munsif. The decree-holder appealed to the Court of the District Judge, but the learned Judge dismissed the appeal.

(2.) Before us two points have been argued. In the first place, it has been contended that the Orissa Money-Lenders Act can have no application to promissory notes and that the Act is ultra vires in so far as it purports to deal with promissory notes. It is, however, unnecessary to consider this point because the learned Munsif did not interfere with the rate of interest on a promissory note, but he scaled down the rate of interest given in a decree passed before the Orissa Money-Lenders act came into force. A similar point arose before the Federal Court in Subrahmanyan Chettiar V/s. Muthuswami Goundan A.I.R. 1941 F.C. 47. In that case the Madras-Agriculturists Relief act gives the executing Court a right to scale down interest in a decree passed on a promissory note. The Federal Court held that interfering with the rate of interest in a decree passed on a promissory note before the Act came into force was very different from interfering with the rate of interest on a promissory note when passing a decree on that note. They held that the Madras Agriculturists Relief Act was intra vires, and the Court could interfere with the rates of interest allowed by decrees on promissory notes passed before the Act came into force. In the present case the Orissa Act allows interference with the rate of interest given in decrees generally, and no distinction is drawn between a decree on a promissory note and any other decree. The decree here was passed before the Act came into force, and I can see no real distinction between the present case and the Federal Court decision to which I have referred. We are bound by that latter decision, and that being so, I hold that the provision in the Orissa Money-Lenders Act permitting the scaling down of interest on decrees i passed on promissory notes is intra vires at least if the decree is passed before the Act came into force. Whether the same principle would apply to decrees passed after the Act came into force, I prefer at this stage to express no opinion.

(3.) The only other point taken is that the learned District Judge was wrong in accepting the version of the transaction given by the respondent. The respondent had filed a written statement in the original suit and the version given in that written statement was very different from the version which he gave on oath in these proceedings. The learned District Judge points out that the statement in the written statement was probably the statement of a desperate man who put forward a wild defence and then had not the courage to go into the witness box to support it. It is to be observed that the final decree was passed ex parte. In any event, where a person has made two conflicting statements it is for the Court of fact to decide which is the true statement. In the present case both Courts of fact have held that the version given by the respondent in the present proceedings is the correct version, and this Court cannot in second appeal interfere with such a finding.