CHINNI VENKATACHALAM CHETTI Vs. KENCHAM BINDU MADHAVA RAO

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is a petition by the unsuccessful plaintiff in O.S. No. 395 of 1939 on the file of the Court of the District Munsiff, Nellore. The decree dismissing his suit was confirmed on appeal by the District Judge of Nellore and the plaintiff has accordingly approached this Court with the present petition. The suit was upon a promissory note which was admitted, during the trial before the District Munsiff, to have been true and supported by consideration. In both the Courts, however, the suit has been dismissed on the ground that the provisions of Section 19 (iv) of the Madras Debt Conciliation Act prevents its being filed. That section says that a suit for the recovery of any debt which has been deemed to have been duly discharged under Sub- section (ii) of Section 10 cannot be entertained by any Civil Court. Sub-section (ii) of Section 10 provides that where a statement is not submitted to the Board in compliance with the provisions of Sub-section (i), the debts which ought to be included in that statement shall be deemed for all purposes and on all occasions to have been duly discharged. Sub-section (i) of Section 10 provides that a notice should be issued by the Board calling upon every creditor of a debtor to submit a statement of the debts owed to him by the debtor. Such statement must be drawn up in a certain manner and must be submitted within two months from the date of service or publication of the notice as the case may be.

(2.) A notice in this case was served on the 12 December, 1938. According, therefore, to the strict language of Section 10(i) of the Act, the statement ought to have been submitted to the Board on or before the 12 February, 1939. However, the notice itself is in these terms, that the creditors are requested to submit to the, Board a statement in writing on or before the 16 February, 1939, at the Board's office. The notice concludes by calling the attention of the creditors to Section 10(ii) of the Act and to the penalty which will be exacted in case they do not comply with the Act. On the 16 February, the Board was due to meet at Kaluvoy; but there was no meeting of the Board owing to a sudden change of arrangements. A clerk was left at Kaluvoy with instructions to receive any statement that may be handed in. The present petitioner did not file any statement on that day. On the 27 February, the Board met. It appears from the orders passed in May that on that day, statements were received from the present petitioner and from other creditors. But no statements were received from creditors 4, 6 and 7. Therefore on that day, the debts due to these creditors were declared to be formally discharged for non-compliance with the provisions of Section 10(i). No definite statement is made as to what should happen to the creditors who filed statements on the 27 February. The matter of the application remained open with the Board until the 5 May, when it was finally closed.

(3.) It is argued first against the petitioner in this petition that because he did not file his statement on or before the 12 February, his debt was automatically discharged. It seems to me impossible to accept this argument. The discharge of the debt is a penalty for non- compliance with the terms of a notice and the terms of this particular notice gave the petitioner time until the 16 February. It is impossible therefore to accept the argument that because he did nothing on the 12 February, he has lost all his right of suit.