MAHEMAJI NAGOJI MARATHE Vs. CHANDRABHAN LAXMAN KOLHE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS appeal raises a point Under the Debt Conciliation Act. The facts necessary to mention are simple. On 12th October 1934, a preliminary decree was obtained in a mortgage suit. On 25th May 1936, the debtor applied to the Debt Conciliation Board, we are told, for the settlement of the mortgage debt though this is not clear. No intimation of this application was given to the Court before which the mortgage suit was pending. On 23rd September 1936 the Court, in ignorance of the proceedings before the Debt Conciliation Board, made the preliminary decree final. At 4-40 P.M. on the same date a certificate of the Debt Conciliation Board was filed and thereupon the Judge to whose knowledge this was brought stated that it was not clear from the certificate whether it related to the debt in question; anyhow he had made the decree final and could not set aside the order. Prom that order or observation refusing to set aside the order making the decree final no appeal was brought. On 5th August 1937 the decree-holder applied for execution. On 27th August, he was put in possession. On 25th September process-server's report as to possession was put in. On the same day the judgment-debtor appeared with another certificate from the Debt Conciliation Board and contended that the proceedings should be stayed. That contention is founded on Section 21, Debt Conciliation Act, which provides inter alia as follows: When an application has been made to a Board Hinder Section 4, any suit or other proceedings then pending before a Civil Court in respect of any debt for the settlement of which application has been made shall be suspended until the Board has disposed of the application.

(2.) IF that suspension operates from the moment the proceedings are commenced before the Board then quite clearly the final decree in this case was made at a time when all proceedings before the Court, according to the Section so read, should be deemed to be suspended. On the other hand, if the suspension only dates from the time when the proceedings before the Board have been brought to the attention of the Court, then the decree was made final before the Court was apprised of the proceedings before the Board and the suspension does not invalidate the decree. In any event, it has been urged that the objections taken to the final decree should have been made by appeal from the order refusing to set aside the decree, and no appeal having been filed against that order it does not lie in the judgment-debtor's mouth to object to the execution. In order to resolve the conundrum put under Section 21 we have to refer to E. 11 of the rules made under the Act which rule is made presumably under the powers conferred by Section 25(1), that is to say rule made "generally, for the purpose of carrying into effect the provisions of this Act." The rule provides as follows: If at any time during the course of the proceedings it appears to the Board that any creditor has filed a suit or started any other proceedings which should be suspended under Section 21 of the Act, the Board shall grant a certificate in Form No. II appended to these rules over the signature of the Chairman to the debtor concerned, specifying the debts owing to any such creditor which may be under settlement.

(3.) HERE , clearly an existing right is interfered with, if as from the moment a debtor makes an application to one tribunal his opponent, the creditor, has his suit stopped before another tribunal so that instead of giving a decree that tribunal declines to grant him a decree. It should be noted that Civil Courts and Debt Conciliation Boards are quite disconnected institutions, operating in many cases long distances the one from the other, presided over by different kinds of officers, and it is quite possible that a proceeding can be pending before a Board involving, it may be, a dozen creditors all of whom have got suits against the debtor, who has launched proceedings before the Board, in various Civil Courts scattered all over the Central Provinces and Berar. These Courts, if the construction urged by the appellant-judgment-debtor before us is true, may be allowed to waste their time hearing these suits in complete ignorance of the proceedings before the Board to no end whatever. Rule 11 is perfectly useless; it is quite idle for anybody to obtain a certificate; it is quite unnecessary to take the certificate to a Civil Court because whether the certificate be granted or not, whether it be filed or not, the proceedings before the Civil Court are suspended by statute as from the moment the debtor files his application before the Debt Conciliation Board and that suspension will continue until the-Board has disposed of the application. It is-a commonplace that at the moment there are over 10,000 applications before the Boards. The jurisdiction of these Boards-has changed from time to time and has-certainly been far in excess of Rs. 25,000. All these Boards are now being brought to an end and a new Act, Belief of Indebtedness Act, has come into force, the Proviso to Section 26 of which is as follows: Provided that all proceedings for the settlement of debts not exceeding twenty-five thousand rupees-pending before it (the Debt Conciliation Board)' shall be transferred to such Court (that is to say the Debt Relief Court in the district in which the Debt Conciliation Board functions.)