HAFIZ ABDUL NOOR Vs. SAHU BRIJ MOHAN SARAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is a revision application by a judgment-debtor. The facts which have given rise to this application briefly put are these: Sahu Brijmohan Saran obtained a decree against Hafiz Abdul Noor for a large sum of money on the foot of a mortgage deed on 24 September 1937. The judgment-debtor made an application under Secs.30, 4 and 5 of Agriculturists Relief Act of 1934. He alleged that he was an agriculturist. It was pleaded by him that the rate of interest agreed upon under the terms of the deed was excessive and should therefore be reduced. He also asked that the decree should be amended and converted into a decree under which he should be permitted to pay the amount due in instalments. The decree-holder opposed the application. It was pleaded that before a preliminary decree had been passed, the judgment-debtor raised objections about the interest being excessive; but that he did not appear in the Court later and therefore an ex parte decree was passed. The decree-holder in these circumstances pleaded that the present application was barred by the principle of res judicata. The learned Judge allowed the application so far as the prayer for instalments was concerned. He however came to the conclusion that the judgment-debtor was not entitled to ask for the reduction of interest and therefore refused to grant that request.

(2.) The judgment-debtor has preferred this revision against that order.

(3.) The question which we have to consider in this case is whether the view taken by the learned Judge of the Court below refusing to reduce the interest is correct. At the very outset, it may be pointed out that there are two single Judge rulings which are in favour of the judgment. debtor's contentions. One of them is Baryar Singh V/s. Ram Dularay . This case was decided a few days before the order in the present appeal was passed by the Court below and very likely the attention of the learned Judge mould not have been drawn to it. It was held in the above mentioned ruling that u judgment-debtor in the case of a decree which was passed after the coming into force of the U.P. Agriculturists Relief Act (17 of 1934) can apply for relief under Section 30(2) of that Act. The other case is Narain Singh v. Banke Behari Lal . In this case also the same a view was taken. According to the argument addressed to us by learned Counsel appearing for the respondent, the view taken in these two cases is not accurate and we have therefore been asked not to follow them. The decision of the question depends on the interpretation to be placed on Section 30, Agriculturists Relief Act. Section 30, Clause (1) runs as follows: Notwithstanding anything in any contract to the contrary, no debtor shall be liable to pay interest on a loan taken before this Act comes into force, at a rate higher than that specified in Schedule 8 for the period from let January 1930, till such date an may be fixed by the local Government in the Gazette in this behalf.