AMAN-O-AMAN BANK LTD Vs. CHANDRA BALI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) These two applications in revision are connected together and shall be governed by the same judgment. The applicant in both the cases is the same, namely, the Aman-O-Aman Bank Ltd., Gorakhpur, herein referred to as the Bank. The Bank obtained a decree against eight persons, two of whom have died leaving as their legal representatives some of the remaining six. Thus there are at present six judgment-debtors to the decree. Two applications for apportionment of liability under Section 11, U.P. Debt Redemption Act, were made by the judgment- debtors. They were disposed of by the same order apportioning the liability between the judgment-debtors. The decree-holder having felt dissatisfied by the order of apportionment has come up in revision to this Court. Two revisions have been filed against the order disposing of two different applications though for the same relief.

(2.) It is an admitted fact that all the judgment-dehtors are agriculturists. The contention on behalf of the decree-holder Bank was that Section 11 does not apply to a case where all the judgment-debtors are agriculturists. This contention has been repelled by the Court below and has been repeated before me in this Court It is urged by Mr. Takru holding brief in both the cases that the Court below has misinterpreted Section 11, U.P. Debt Redemption Act. Section 11 reads as follows: In any proceeding relating to a loan due jointly from several persons any of whom is an agriculturist or a workman the Court shall apportion the loan between the joint debtors and the provisions of this Act shall apply only to that part of the loan which is apportioned to the joint debtor who is an agriculturist or a workman.

(3.) Learned Counsel contends that this section applies only to a case where any of the judgment-debtors is an agriculturist and does not apply to a case where all the judgment-debtors are agriculturists. I am unable to accept this contention. The word "any" in the context in which it occurs includes "all." It cannot be said that a case in which all the judgment-debtors are agriculturists is not a case in which any judgment-debtor is an agriculturist. The word "any" used in this section will include one or more and there seems to be no reason for holding that it will include any number only so long as that number is one less than the total number of the judgment-debtors. The word "any" in this section appears to have been used in the sense opposite to none and this section applies to every case other than a case where none of the judgment-debtors is an agriculturist.