NRISHINGHA CHARAN NANDI CHOUDHURY Vs. KEDAR NATH CHAUDURY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This matter affords some illustration of what may be the amazing and unexpected results of the Bengal Agricultural Debtors Act 1935, (Bengal Act 7 of 1936). It is not in my opinion putting the situation in too serious a light to say that the effects of the Act, unless the Courts are very careful to interpret its provisions with the utmost strictness, may be to work untold hardship to persons to whom money is owing and to entail much injustice. This case is concerned indirectly with a decree which was obtained by one Nrishingha Charan Nandi Choudhury described as a shebait of Sri Sri Raj Rajeswar Bigrahaya Thakur of Mohanganj, Dinajpur, against one Kedar Nath Choudhury of Kandi in the District) of Murshidabad. Nrishingha is the petitioner before us and as long ago as the year 1932 he instituted a suit for accounts against Kedar Nath Choudhury upon the footing that Kedar Nath Choudhury had been his patwari entrusted with the duty of collecting rents, cesses and so forth and that Kedar Nath Choudhury had left the service of the plaintiff without rendering any or, at any rate, any proper accounts. The suit was registered and numbered as Suit No. 312 of 1932 in the Court of the Munsif of Raigunj, District Dinajpur. The suit was contested on various grounds. Ultimately a decree was made in favour of the plaintiff on 22 May, 1933. That decree was affirmed on appeal by the Subordinate Judge. The defendant brought the matter to this Court in second appeal and that appeal by a judgment of this Court was dismissed on 2 February, 1937. It therefore had taken about five years for the plaintiff to obtain a final decree for the amount due to him. That amount was round about Rs. 1200. The plaintiff put the decree to execution-the decree which was really the decree of the High Court, and he asked that the decree should be satisfied by the attachment and sale of properties belonging to the judgment debtor.

(2.) These properties were situated within the jurisdiction of the First Munsif at Kandi and accordingly the decree was sent to that Court, that is to say, the Court of the First Munsif for execution. The properties were put up for sale on 16 April 1937, and the judgment-debtor then petitioned for a stay of the sale, pending the bringing by him as he put it, of a stay order from the Debt Settlement Board at Dinajpur to which he had applied presumably under the provisions of Section 8, Bengal Agricultural Debtors Act, 1935. The Munsif of Kandi rejected that application on the ground that the properties under attachment were situated within the jurisdiction of the Court of the Munsif at Kandi, District Murshidabad, and that no Settlement Board of the District of Dinajpur had jurisdiction to deal with the matter. Subsequently, that is to say on 19 April 1937, an order was made permitting the decree-holder to bid at the sale. The sale took place on the same day and the decree-holder purchased the property for the sum of Rs. 1,200. He then applied to be allowed to set-off the purchase price as against the sum due to him under the decree, The set-off was allowed. The matter was recorded in the order sheet in these terms: Decree-holder auction-purchased judgment-debtor's property at Rs. 1,200 and applied for set-off. Set-off allowed. Put up on 21 May 1937 for confirmation of sale.

(3.) So the position was that on 19 April 1937, the decree-holder had been allowed to exchange the debt due to him for the purchase price of the property which he was buying. In other words, instead of having to pay Rs. 1,200 as purchase money for the properties of the judgment-debtor, the decree-holder gave up the debt due to him. On 11 May 1937, a notice was received in the Court of the Munsif from the Debt Settlement Board, a notice which had been served or at any rate sent under the provisions of Section 34, Bengal Agricultural Debtors Act, 1935. It is important that we should observe the exact phraseology of that section. It is in these terms: When an application under Section 8 or a statement under Sub-section (1) of Section 13 includes any debt in respect of which a suit or other proceeding is pending before a Civil or Revenue Court, the Board shall give notice thereof to such Court in the prescribed manner, and thereupon the suit or proceeding shall be stayed until the Board has either dismissed the application in respect of such debt or made an award thereon, and if the Board includes any part of such debt under C1. (d) of Sub-section (1) of Section 25 in the award or the Board decides that the debt does not exist, the suit or proceeding shall abate so far as it relates to such debt.