MT. SUNDERBAI Vs. POORANSAO KISANSAO

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE plaintiff brought a suit on a mortgage. The mortgagor did not defend the case but his sons, two of whom were not born at the time of the mortgage and the third of whom was then a minor, entered a defence. The claim is met by the contention that in debt conciliation proceedings her claim in respect of this debt had been automatically discharged for all purposes and all occasions under the provisions of Section 8(2), Debt Conciliation Act. She claimed, however, that the order of the Board was ultra vires inasmuch as no notice under Section 7 had been issued to her and that she had submitted the statement which Section 8(1) requires on the due date and that it was for alleged failure to produce particulars under Section 9 that she had been wrongly concluded under Section 8(2). The trial Court found that the proceedings of the Debt Conciliation Board were invalid inasmuch as no notice under Section 7 had been issued and that the order passed under Section 8(2) was vindictive and wrongly founded on alleged laches under Section 9. The plaintiff's claim was accordingly decreed.

(2.) IN appeal before the District Judge it was urged by the defendants that the failure to issue notice under Section 7 was immaterial in as much as the plaintiff had attended in response to a notice under Section 8(1) and was present in all subsequent proceedings, and that in addition to the failure to file particulars on the due date the plaintiff had not even filed the mortgage it self on which she relied. The learned District Judge held that the failure to issue a notice under Section 7 was immaterial and a mere procedural error and that the discharge of her debts under Section 8(2) was correct and also found that none of the documents which she produced in the suit out of which the appeal arose could, under the provisions of Section 9(3), Debt Conciliation Act, be admitted in evidence as they had not been produced before the Board as required by Section 9(1). He also held that Ex. P. 5, which was a certified copy of the statement filed under the provisions of Section 8(1), had not been proved and that consequently the plaintiff had no case at all. Against this decision a second appeal by the plaintiff has been preferred.

(3.) SECTION 8(1) requires no more than the (furnishing of a statement of debts, and Section 8(2) provides for the discharge of every debt in respect of which a statement is not submitted. Section 8(2) makes no mention whatever of the full particulars which are to be furnished of the debt, and the notice of which EX. P-6 is a copy which was sent to Mt. Sundarbai emphasises this since the penultimate paragraph runs: Attention is invited to Section 8(2) of the said Act under which every debt of which a statement is not submitted to the Board in compliance with this notice shall be deemed for all purposes and all occasions to have been duly discharged. The previous paragraph of this notice requires her to bring with the statement full particulars of all such debts but failure to do that does not involve the automatic discharge of the debts in respect of which the order was passed.