HAZAREEMULL HEERALAL Vs. BALARAM CHATTERJEE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Two matters were mentioned before me namely, suit No. 1467 pf 1936, Durgadutt Jalan V/s. Rai Charan Monmohan Saha and suit No. 528 of 1942, Hazarimull Heeralal V/s. Balaram Chatterjee and Anr. I propose to dispose of both the matters by this judgment. Money decrees were passed in each of the two suits and thereafter applications were made in each of the two suits for transmission of the decrees to different Courts of the District Judge within whose respective jurisdiction the judgment-debtors were alleged to have properties so as to enable the respective plaintiffs to take execution proceedings in those respective Courts. On each of those applications the usual order for transmission was made, in the first case (Suit No. 1467 of 1936) by Khundkar J. and in the second case (suit No. 528 of 1942) by the learned Master of this Court.

(2.) It appears, however, that the judgment-debtors in both the suits had, in the meantime, sought to take the benefit of the provisions of the Bengal Agricultural Debtors Act 1935, and notice under Section 34 of the said Act had been sent to this Court from the respective Debt Settlement Boards within whose jurisdiction the respective debtors resided. The respective attorneys for the plaintiffs in both the suits having pressed the Execution Department of this Court for actual transmission of the 9 decrees, they were informed by the Registrar of this Court that the service of the notice by the Debt Settlement Boards operated as stay in view of the amendment made in Section 2, Bengal Agricultural Debtors Act, by insertion of sub Section 6(A) by Act 8 of 1940 after the decision of the Special Bench of this Court made on appeal from the Narsingdas Tansukdass V/s. Chhogmull reported in ( 39) 26 A.I.R. 1969 Cal. 435 and that in the circumstances the certified copy of decree and other proceedings could not be transmitted to the District Court for execution unless they applied to Court and obtained the necessary direction. The two matters were accordingly mentioned before me by Mr. B.C. Dutt, Advocate for the plaintiff in Suit No. 1467 of 1936 and Mr. H.C. Majumder counsel for the plaintiff in Suit No. 528 of 1942. The two matters stand on exactly the same footing except that in second case (Suit No. 528 of 1942) the debt which merged in the decree in that suit accrued after 1 January 1940. I have now heard Mr. Dutt and Mr. Majumder both of whom contended that even after the amendment referred to by the Registrar, the provisions of the Bengal Agricultural Debtors Act did not affect the decrees passed by this Court in exercise of its ordinary original civil jurisdiction. Nobody has appeared for the defendants and I have not had the advantage of hearing any argument in opposition to the arguments advanced by Mr. Dutt and Mr. Majumdar.

(3.) The Bengal Agricultural Debtors Act, 1935, was passed in 1936. In December 1937 the case in Narsingdas V/s. Chhogmull came up before Panckridge J. In that case a decree had been passed by this Court in exercise of its ordinary original civil jurisdiction and receivers were appointed in execution of the decree. Thereafter a notice came from a Debt Settlement Board under Section 34, Bengal Agricultural Debtors Act. The plaintiffs in that suit pressed the receivers to take steps to put up certain properties for sale but the defendants in that suit contended that the notice from the Debt Settlement Board operated as stay of the execution proceedings. The receivers thereupon applied to Court for directions. Panekridge, J. gave effect to the contentions of defendants in that suit and dismissed the application of the receivers. In Brojobashi Roy V/s. Nagarbashi Choudhury which was decided by Edgley, J., in January 1938 the question whether the Act affected the High Court was left open. Indeed it was not necessary for the learned Judge to decide the question. Baijnath V/s. Tormull was decided by Ameer Ali J. in February 1938. This case was also concerned with a decree passed by this Court in exercise of its ordinary original civil jurisdiction which had been transmitted to the Dumka Court for execution. Ameer Ali J. held that the High Court was a "civil Court" within the meaning of the Act. In Satish Chandra V/s. Nowgaon Union Bank Ltd. an appeal was pending in the appellate side of this Court from an order of adjudication passed by the District Court. S.K. Ghose and Patterson JJ. in July 1938 held, inter alia, that the appellate side of this Court was a "civil Court" within the meaning of the Act. The learned Judges simply followed the decision of Panckridge J. in Narsingdas V/s. Chhogmull and that of Ameer Ali J. in Baijnath v. Tormull .