HIRAJEE BANSINGH Vs. KALOOSINGH JALAMSINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE question for decision in this appeal is whether a debt, deemed for all purposes and on all occasions to have been discharged under Section 8(1), Central Provinces and Berar Relief of Indebtedness Act, 1939, must still be deemed to be discharged when the debtor's application is dismissed under Section 9(2) of the Act.

(2.) IT is desirable to consider those other provisions of the Act which may have some bearing on the point. It is enacted in Section 5(2) of the Act that the debtor's application shall be signed and verified in accordance with Order 6, Rule 15, Civil P.C., 1908, and shall contain inter alia a statement that the debtor is an agriculturist and is unable to pay his debts. Section 6(1) of the Act provides that any debtor, who is an agriculturist and whose debts do not exceed Rs. 25,000 may file an application to the Debt Relief Court having jurisdiction praying for the determination of his debt, and that such application shall contain the particulars stated in Section 5. There is no express provision in the Act under which the Court can dismiss applications when the debts are found to exceed Rs. 25,000 or when the debtor is found not to be an agriculturist. Another feature of the Act is that certain debts are only affected by Section 5, Section 6 Sub-section (1), Sections 7, 8, 9 and 23. Thus, certain debts which cannot be scaled down at all under the provisions of the Act are affected by Section 8 of the Act. Their existence is material for the purpose of deciding whether the debtor is or is not able to pay his debts, and material for the purpose of deciding whether the debtor is or is not entitled to apply. Another provision in the Act is that under Section 20 a person aggrieved by an order of the Debt Relief Court may apply for revision of the order on the ground that the Court has exercised a jurisdiction not vested by law or failed to exercise a jurisdiction vested in it by law.

(3.) AT any rate, if the Debt Relief Court decides that the debtor is unable to pay his debts and dismisses the application, it cannot be said that any question of jurisdiction has arisen, and it is impossible to hold the view that owing to some lack of jurisdiction, which has existed, any part of the proceedings has become a nullity or any stage of the proceedings vitiated and rendered null by jurisdictional defect. The wording of Section 8 is plain and unequivocal, and the scheme of the Act is to penalise creditors whose debts cannot be scaled down at all in virtue of Section 4 if they fail to file the statement required under Section 8(1) of the Act. When this is so, there is nothing remarkable in the Legislature failing to make an exception for the case where the application is subsequently dismissed under Section 9, Sub-section (2). The determination of the question whether the debtor is or is not able to pay his debts cannot be arrived at-unless the claims of the creditors are submitted and the contentions of the creditors are dealt with. If creditors were not penalised for failing to submit statements of their debts, the determination of the question whether the debtor was able to pay his debts would be delayed. The object, of Section 8 is to ensure that the procedure of the Debt Relief Court is not hindered by creditors failing to submit statements of claim duly signed and verified under Section 8(1). It would have been very easy for the Legislature to provide that if the claim were dismissed on the ground that the debtor was able to pay his debts, the debts discharged under Section 8(1) should revive, and it is hard to suppose that a position has now arisen which the Legislature inadvertently failed to consider, particularly in view of the provisions of section 4.