PURAN CHAND Vs. BHAGWAT PRASAD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is an application in revision by a decree-holder arising out of a proceeding under Secs.3 and 5, U.P. Agriculturists Belief Act. The decree-holder had obtained in 1934 a decree for money, directing payment by instalments under Order 20, Rule 11, Civil P.C. After coming into force of the U.P. Agriculturists Relief Act, the judgment-debtor applied under Section 5 for the decree being converted into a fresh decree for payment by instalments in accordance with the provisions of Section 3 of the Act. The Court below has held that it must proceed under the Act. In revision it is argued before us that inasmuch as there had already been a decree directing payment by instalments, Section 5 would not apply as it must apply to a case where there is no decree for payment by instalments at all. This contention does not appear to be sound. Section 5 lays down that: Notwithstanding anything contained in the Civil P. C., 1908, the Court shall, unless for reasons to be recorded it directs otherwise, at any time, on the application of the judgment-debtor and after notice to the decree-holder, direct that any decree for money...passed...whether before or after this Act comes into force, shall be converted into a decree for payment by instalments drawn up in such terms as it thinks fit in accordance with the provisions of Section 3.

(2.) The section is most general in its scope and applies to "any decree for money". It is therefore impossible to hold that it is inapplicable to the case where a decree for money directing payment by instalments under Order 20, Rule 11 has been passed. Section 3 contains no less than five sub-sections and lays down several provisions regarding the fixing of instalments at the time of passing a decree. These provisions are not all contained in Order 20, Rule 11. The Legislature has therefore directed that the Court should convert a decree for money into a decree for payment by instalments drawn up in such terms as it thinks fit in accordance with the provisions of Section 3. This implies that the Court should apply its mind to the provisions of Section 3 and order a fresh decree to be prepared fixing instalments in accordance with the provisions of that section. Proviso 2, Section 3, Sub-section 1 lays down that in case of agricultural calamity, where there is likelihood of causing hardship, the Court may allow further time for payment by such instalments as it may consider proper. It would nullify the provision if we were to hold that Section 5 is wholly inapplicable to a case where there is a decree for money already directing payment by instalments. There seems to be no reason for restricting the scope of Section 5 when the language employed therein is general. We are therefore of opinion that it was open to the Court below, and indeed unless it was, for reasons to be recorded, prepared to act otherwise, it was its duty to convert the previous decree into one for payment by instalments in such terms as it thought fit in accordance with the provisions of Section 3.

(3.) The next point urged is that the total period over which the instalments are spread, namely ten years, is too long. This was not a case to which Ch. 3 applied and therefore the maximum period under proviso 1, Section 3, Sub-section (1), is 15 years. We cannot hold in revision that the Court below has committed any irregularity in1 the exercise of its jurisdiction in fixing the period of ten years which is well within the maximum limit. The revision has no force and it is accordingly dismissed with costs.