S A RAMANATHA SASTRIGAL Vs. KOLADI KRISHNA MENON

JUDGEMENT

(1.) These civil miscellaneous petitions can be dealt with conveniently in one judgment. In C.M.P. No. 3026 of 1939 the petitioner asks that he be granted leave to appeal to the Federal Court against the order passed by this Court in C. R.P. No. 1603 of 1938. In C.M.P. No. 3028 of 1939 he asks for leave to appeal to the Federal Court against the order of this Court in C. R. P. No. 1604 of 1938. In C. M. Ps. Nos. 3027 and 3029 of 1939 the petitioner asks for orders dispensing with deposits for printing charges and directing the office to issue bills setting out the amounts of the printing charges. His learned advocate has indicated that he is prepared to pay the bills at once. In C.M.P. No. 3030 of 1939 the petitioner asks for an order consolidating the proposed appeals to the Federal Court.

(2.) The petitioner filed two suits against the respondent in the Court of the Subordinate Judge of Ottapalam to recover amounts claimed to be due on promissory notes. The suits were subsequently transferred to the Court of the Subordinate Judge of Calicut and there numbered as O.S. Nos. 52 of 1939 and 53 of 1939 respectively. In the first suit the petitioner asked for a decree for Rs. 13,932-13-4 and in the second suit for a decree for Rs. 19,762-1-3. The respondent pleaded that he was an agriculturist and therefore entitled to the benefit of the scaling down provisions of the Madras Agriculturists Relief Act. The petitioner denied that the respondent was an agriculturist within the meaning of the Act. He also contended that the Act was ultra vires the Provincial Legislature. A preliminary issue was framed in each suit on the question of the validity of the Act and the Subordinate Judge held that it was ultra vires. The respondent then filed applications in this Court asking it to reverse the decision in the exercise of its revisional powers. Before the applications came into the list for hearing a Full Bench of this Court had held in Mada Nagaratnam V/s. Puvvada Seshayya (1939) 1 M.L.J. 272 : I.L.R. (1939) Mad. 151 (F.B.), that the Act was intra vires. Consequently when the applications were called before Lakshmana Rao, J., they were allowed. The learned Judge was then asked to grant a certificate under Section 205 of the Government of India Act, which he did, whereupon the petitioner filed the petitions now before us.

(3.) The petitions came before the Court in the first instance on the 25th September, 1939, when the right of appeal to the Federal Court claimed by the petitioner was challenged by the respondent. The questions of fact arising in the suits had not then been decided, and if decided in favour of the petitioner, the question of the validity of the Madras Agriculturists Relief Act would not arise. In these circumstances the Court suggested to the learned advocates engaged in the case that the applications might stand over until after the suits or the appeals therefrom had been decided. They agreed to this course and the petitions were ordered to stand out of the list until decrees in the suits or appeals arising out of them had been passed.