AMULYA CHANDRA BHADURI Vs. KRISHNABONDHU ROY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) It is difficult to conceive of a more unmeritorious proceeding than was started by the appellant in the present appeal. It is a satisfaction to find that the relief asked for is not warnted by law.

(2.) The material facts are the following: on 23-11-1937, the -appellant obtained a decree for Rs. 2007-6-0- inclusive of costs against the respondent from the Presidency Small Causes Court at Calcutta. Subsequently, this decree was transferred to the Court of the subordinate Judge at Patna for execution and there an execution case was registered on the 28-8-1939. An attachment of some properties of respondent in due course followed, but on the 8-10-1939, the respondent made an application before the Debt Settlement Board. Three days later, on the 11-10-1939, the executing Court received a notice under Section 34, Bengal Agricultural Debtors Act whereupon it directed further proceedings to be stayed. The appellant took part in the proceedings before the Debt Settlement Board and on 31-3-1941 an award was made in his favour with his consent for a sum of Rs. 1700 payable in twenty instalments. It appears that on a subsequent date he paid the necessary court-fee on this award made in his favour.

(3.) To return now to the executing Court, that Court was apprised of the award on 29-4- 1941, and thereupon it passed an order to the effect that the execution ease had abated in accordance with Section 34, Bengal Agricultural Debtors Act. On 28-8-1941 however, the decree-holder made an application for setting aside the order of abatement and for proceeding with the execution, principally on the ground that the liability under the decree of the Presidency Small Causes Court was not a debt within the contemplation o? the Bengal Agricultural Debtors Act. It is out of this application that the present appeal arises.