PT SHIVA SHANKAR LAL SHARMA Vs. RAMJI LAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal raises a little point which may possibly be one of some practical interest. The facts are that in September 1922, the defendant lent a sum of Rs. 10,000 to the plaintiff at interest at a certain rate. In 1934, the United Provinces Agriculturists Relief Act was passed. Among other provisions, the Act by Section 33 gave to an agriculturist debtor a right to come to the Court and obtain from the Court a declaration, as between himself and his creditor, as to the outstanding amount of the debt. Upon such an application, the Court is enjoined, after taking the necessary accounts, to declare the amount of debt accordingly and, if the creditor so desires, to pass a decree in his favour for the sum so found. In October 1935 the debtor was minded to avail himself of Section 33 of the Act, and he started a suit under that section by a plaint of 2 October, 1935. He admitted that he had borrowed the money in 1922 and claimed to be an agriculturist. Then, by para. 3 of his plaint he claimed certain credits amounting in all to Bs. 5700 in respect of payments which he said he had from time to time made to the creditor. By para. I the plaintiff said that, though he had asked for accounts from his creditor, he had failed to obtain them and then he went to ask for a declaration that a sum of Rs. 17,755 was due to him. And in addition he asked for his costs of the proceedings. Beyond the statement of the credits claimed by the plaintiff contained in para. 3 of the plaint there was no exact statement showing how that figure of Rs. 17,765 was arrived at. But, obviously, what had happened was that the plaintiff had aggregated principal and interest and, after taking credit for what he claimed he had paid, had arrived at the final figure of Rs. 17,755. That plaint was filed over a ten-rupee stamp and, immediately on presentation, the appropriate officer of the Court made the observation upon it that the court-fee was insufficient. In response to that observation by the Munsarim, the learned Judge himself con-tributed a note at the foot of the plaint to this effect: The matter is a difficult one and is best finally decided after hearing other side, so register and let summonses issue for hearing suit for 10 December, 1935. The question of deficiency shall then be finally considered.

(2.) That referred to the question which at that stage had been raised by the Munsarim as to the sufficiency of the ten-rupee court, fee. Three months lajter on, 6 January 1936, the defendant, -who was the creditor, lodged his written statement. He admitted practically everything in the plaint, except that he had refused or neglected to render an account when asked for it. That was the allegation of para. & of the plaint but by his further pleas he raised two points. Ifirst, by para. 10, he raised the point as to the insufficiency of the court-fee which had already been taken by the Munsarim and which had been directed by the Judge to be decided in Court at the hearing and, secondly, by para. 9 he pointed out, as was perfectly true, that the plaintiff had not filed any actual account and that it was impossible to proceed with an adjustment of the account without details of it. He did not, however, deny the credits which the plaintiff claimed ; on the other hand, he expressly admitted them. All he said was, in effect, "let me see the account, and then I shall be able to say what is due."

(3.) On 8 January 1936, two days after the written statement had been filed, the learned Judge in fact made an order directing the plaintiff to file an account and on 8 January, the plaintiff did file an account in the form of an exhibit to an affidavit of that date. This account showed not only the payments alleged in para. 3 of the plaint for which he claimed credit but also showed the calculations of interest having regard to the dates of payment of those credits and it ultimately arrived at the figure of Rupees 17,755 which was the same figure as was stated in the plaint; in short, the account of 8 January 1936 was a full account. The case came before the learned Judge on 22 January, 1936, and he tells us himself what happened. It was that the defendant by his vakil admitted the correctness of the account. The learned Judge then went on to decide the small question as to the court, fee and ultimately after a very brief judgment, held that the plaintiff was entitled to a declaration that Rs. 17,755 was payable by the plaintiff to the defendant on 2 October, 1935 and that he was entitled to his costs of the suit. It is the order as to costs that has given rise to this appeal. The decree was drawn up on 8 February 1986 and it is noticeable?although no complaint seems to have been made of it in this appeal that the decree goes a good deal further than the judgment, inasmuch as it not only makes a declaration but also gives a decree for payment. The judgment makes no order for payment, and, if Section 33 is Carefully examined, it will be seen that a decree for payment does not follow as a matter of course but only when it is expressly applied for by the defendant. In this case it is evident from the judgment itself that it had not been applied for. I only point that out for the benefit of the learned Judge. No complaint is made about it in this appeal. The appellant, who is the defendant, filed this appeal on 23 April and as originally filed his memorandom of appeal asked to have the whole decree set aside. That, however, was amended in May and the only part of the decree that was attacked by the amended memorandum of appeal was the order as to costs. That, therefore, is what is now in dispute. The appellant says that he ought not to have been ordered to pay the plaintiff's costs. They actually amounted to the not insubstantial sum of Rs. 414.