JITENDRA NATH BASU Vs. TARAK CHANDRA ROY CHOUDHURY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This Rule was issued at the instance of one among three persons who had obtained a stay of a mortgage execution case proceeding against them in the Court of the 2nd Subordinate Judge, Faridpur, by the issue of a notice under Section 34, Bengal Agricultural Debtors Act. Subsequently, on an application made by the decree-holders, the learned Judge vacated the stay order in the view that the Court which had issued the notice had no jurisdiction to deal with any application relating to the decretal debt, inasmuch as that debt amounted to Rs. 48,000. The petitioner contends that the view taken by the learned Judge is not correct and further that, whether the Board had or had not jurisdiction to entertain the application, the learned Judge had himself none to say that it had not and that his own order vacating the stay order is without jurisdiction. The petition to this Court does not disclose two of the most material facts. On a reference to the record, it appears that, after the entire execution case had been stayed, it was pointed out to the learned Judge that of the several debtors only three had gone to the Debt Settlement Board and that the execution case must at least proceed as against the rest of the judgment-debtors. It appears further that, after the application before the Debt Settlement Board had been pending for sometime, the Board itself decided that the amount of the debt appeared to be above Rs. 5000 and a reference would have to be made to the Collector for his sanction. A reference was accordingly made.

(2.) Some extremely interesting questions of law were argued before us when this matter was heard on 18 April last. It was contended on behalf of the opposite parties that, when the Board itself decided that it could not proceed further with the application till sanction had been obtained from the Collector, the Board must be deemed to have never had any jurisdiction to deal with the application at all and the position was the same as if the debtor's application had itself disclosed a debt exceeding Rs. 5000 but below Rs. 25,000. It is, however, not necessary for us to deal with that contention in the present case for reasons immediately to be stated. The reference to the Collector was made as long ago as on 11-2-1945. When the matter was heard by us on 18 April last, we granted the parties an adjournment in order to enable them to ascertain if any final orders had been passed by the Collector. It appeared to us extremely unlikely that a matter of this kind should have been pending for such a length of time. If the Collector had refused the sanction, obviously the matter was at an end and no useful purpose would be served by proceeding with this Rule further.

(3.) It was stated to us by the learned Advocate for the opposite parties to-day that his clients had informed him that the Collector had refused sanction. The learned Advocate for the petitioner on the other hand, was unable to give us any information of any kind, because he stated that although he had written to his clients, he had uptil now received no reply. In the circumstances, we are entitled to proceed on the basis that the statement, made by the opposite parties being uncontradicted is correct, namely, that the Collector refused sanction. In any event, the petitioner moved us in our revisional jurisdiction. As we have pointed out, his application did not disclose two of the essential matters upon which the decision of the case would turn. In the circumstances, we see no reason why we should interfere with the order moved-against in the exercise of our revisional jurisdiction in favour of a party who has not been fully candid with this Court. For the reasons above given, the Rule is discharged with costs-two gold mohurs. Biswas, J.