MADHO PRASAD Vs. MAKHAN LAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is an appeal against an order of remand passed by the lower Appellate Court in a suit brought by the plaintiff-respondent for dissolution of partnership, rendition of accounts and recovery of Rs. 500 or such sum as may be found due to the plaintiff as a result of accounting. The plaintiff-respondent and defendant- appellant entered into a partnership to carry on a grocery shop and the business of the partnership was carried on for some time. The plaintiff's case was that the defendant was in charge of the business, but he closed the shop in November 1935 and removed some of the goods of the partnership. The plaintiff therefore maintained that the defendant was liable to render accounts. Before the institution of the suit the defendant had filed an application under the Encumbered Estates Act (Act 25 of 1934) and the Collector had passed an order under Section 6 of the Act. The defendant maintained that after the passing of the order under Section 6, the suit was not maintainable in view of the provisions of Section 7(1)(b) of the Act and, accordingly he filed an application in the trial Court praying that the suit be dismissed. This application was allowed by the trial Court and the plaintiff's suit was dismissed but, on appeal by the plaintiff, the lower Appellate Court reversed the decree of the trial Court and remanded the suit for trial on its merits. It is this order of remand that is assailed by the present appeal. Section 7(1)(b) runs as follows: When the Collector has passed an order under Section 6 the following consequences shall ensue : (b) no fresh suit or other proceedings...shall be instituted in any Civil or Revenue Court in the United Provinces in respect of any debts incurred before the passing of the said order.

(2.) It is argued by the learned Counsel for the defendant-appellant that the suit was "in respect of" a "debt" within the meaning of Section 7(1)(b) and was therefore not maintainable. In support of this contention reliance is placed on the definition of the word "debt" in Section 2(a) of the Act and on the decisions of this Court in Mukat Behari Lal V/s. Manmohan Lal and Kanhya Lal V/s. Maheshwar Narain and on a decision of the Board of Revenue in Ram Adhar Pathak V/s. Indradeo Singh (1937) R.D. 444. Section 2(a) of the Act provides that: In this Act unless there is anything repugnant, in the subject or context (a) "debt" includes any pecuniary liability except a liability for unliquidated damages.

(3.) Section 7(a) no doubt bars a suit with respect to a "debt" that was incurred before the passing of an order by the Collector under Section 6, but in my judgment the suit under appeal was not with respect to a "debt" as defined by the Act, and, as such, Section 7(1)(b) had no application to the case.