MIR UMRAO ALI Vs. SUBEDAR RUP SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is a decree-holder's application for revision of an order of the learned Civil Judge of Pithoragarh dated 25 May 1936 read with a decree dated 25th February 1936. The facts of the case can be shortly stated as follows : On 4th January 1936 the present applicant obtained a mortgage decree against the respondent for a sum of Rs. 3,091-4-9. The defendant-respondent had claimed a reduction of interest under the provisions of the Agriculturists Relief Act, 1934 but the interest does not appear to have been reduced. On 3 February 1936 the learned Judge passed an order suo motu that the decree should be amended in the light of recent legislation and he issued notice to the parties summoning them before him. On 25 February 193fi the parties duly appeared and after hearing them, the learned Civil Judge reduced the interest payable on this loan in accordance with Section 30, Agriculturists Belief Act, which brought the decretal amount down to Rs. 2,749-4-0. He further ordered that the decree should be payable in four instalments to be paid on 1 March 1937, 1938, 1939 and 1940. On 8 April 1936 the judgment-debtor respondent made another application to the Court praying that the number of instalments should be increased to 15 instalments and on 25 May 1936 the learned Civil Judge passed an order ordering the payment of the decretal amount in nine instalments. The present revision is directed against this order of 25 May 1936 read with the previous order of 25 February 1936.

(2.) It has been contended in the first place by counsel for the decree holder that the learned Judge had no right whatsoever to reduce the interest payable upon the loan in this case. Section 30(1), U.P. Agriculturists Relief Act, provides that 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 3 for the period from 1 January 1930 till such date as may be fixed by the Local Government in the Gazette. It is to be observed that this section is mandatory and provides that no debtor shall be liable to pay interest on the loan at a higher rate than that specified. It appears that when the learned Judge passed the mortgage decree, he over, looked the terms of this section. However, it is provided by Section 30(2) of the Act that if a decree has already been passed on the basis of a loan and remains unsatisfied, the Gourd which passed the decree shall on the application of the judgment-debtor amend it by reducing in accordance with the provisions of Sub-section (1), the amount due on account of interest.

(3.) In short, if the Court passing the decree has not reduced interest in accordance with Section 30(1), it must do so upon application made to it by the judgment debtor. In the present case, it appears that no application was made by the judgment-debtor and the Court of its own motion reduced the interest though it gave the parties an opportunity of being heard before it did so. It has been argued before us that the order reducing interest passed on 25 February 1936 was made without jurisdiction inasmuch as the judgment-debtor had never made an application for such reduction of interest. The point is a technical one and is really without merits. It is true that there was no application on behalf of the judgment-debtor but as the parties were summoned before the Court, and had an opportunity of being heard, it cannot be said that the decree-holder has in any way been prejudiced. Even if we set aside this order reducing interest, it would be open to the judgment-debtor immediately to apply for such reduction and the Court would be bound to reduce the interest in accordance with the terms of Section 30(1) of the Act. Though the decision of the Court below reducing interest is not in accordance with the provisions of Section 30(2) of the Act, yet we do not think it is a case in which we should interfere under our revisional powers. Justice has been done and that being so, the order of 25 February 1936 reducing interest will stand. That order also ordered payment of the decretal amount in four instalments. The learned Judge could under the provisions of Secs.3 and 5 of the Act, order payment by instalments. Proviso 1 to Section 3(1) of the Act is in these terms: Provided that the period of such instalments shall not extend beyond four years from the date of the decree in the case of an agriculturist to whom Ch. 3 applies, and beyond 15 years from such date in the case of other agriculturists.