LALA MAN MOHAN DAS Vs. SYED IZHAR HUSAIN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is a decree-holder's application in revision from an order of the Munsif of Allahabad, allowing an application of the judgment-debtor under Section 5, Agriculturists Relief Act. The decree for money in this case was based on a compromise between the parties under which a certain amount was decreed, and carried future interest at Rs. 10 per cent, per annum. The Court below has granted a decree for instalments, and has also reduced the future interest to Rs. 3 per cent, per annum with effect from 15 December 1935. On behalf of the decree- holder, it is urged first that Section 5 of the Act has no application to a compromise decree at all and that accordingly no instalments should have been allowed; and secondly, it is contended that when an order for payment by instalments is made, future interest cannot be reduced under Section 4. He relies strongly on a case of the Oudh Chief Court, in Kailash Kuar V/s. Amar Nath A.I.R. 1936 Oudh 334. That case certainly supports the second contention. It is unnecessary for us to express any opinion on the interpretation of Section 30, nor is it necessary to consider the effect of the provision in that section that the amended decree should bear the date of the original decree, as in the case before us the judgment-debtor did not apply under that section at all.

(2.) We see no reason why Section 5 should not apply to a decree for money based on a compromise. The section is expressly made applicable to "any decree for money, etc". It matters little whether the decree has been passed after contest or is ex parte, or whether it is passed on the merits or whether it has been passedon the basis of an award or compromise. So long as it is a decree for money, it comes within the scope of Section 5. The Legislature has by using the word "any" made the expression quite general and comprehensive. "We have, therefore, no hesitation in holding that this compromise decree can under Section 5 be converted into a decree for payment by instalments in accordance with the provisions of Section 3. The second contention is certainly not so simple and the applicant has the authority of the Chief Court in his favour. But the learned Judges of Oudh themselves felt consider, able difficulty in coming to the conclusion that future interest cannot be reduced when instalments are ordered. They considered that such a view would lead to the result that the judgment-debtor would get the benefit of instalments and also an additional benefit of a reduced rate of future interest, while if his application under Section 5 is not allowed, the rate of future interest would not be reduced. They considered that this result was anomalous. The learned Judges considered: It is true that the words any order for grant of instalments passed against an agriculturist used in Section 4 are quite general, yet we think that in order to avoid the absurdity pointed out above the proper construction to be placed upon them is to restrict their application to orders for grant of instalments passed under Section 3.

(3.) We regret we are unable to see that there is any absurdity at all. The learned Judges felt compelled to hold that: Section 5 which provides for the fixing of instalments after the passing of decree is therefore quite out of place in this chapter. Thus it will be seen that the position in which Section 5 has been placed is by no means logical or accurate. We cannot, therefore, help feeling that the drafting lacks precision and is rather inartistic.