IMPORTANT POINT
In no case it can be held that for filing a civil suit for realisation of the mortgage amount by the creditor, the proceeding pending before the Tehsildar by debtor under Tamil Nadu Debt Relief Act, 1980 or the appellate authority is to be dismissed without adjudication.

JUDGMENT

D.P. Mohapatra, J.-The effect of institution of a civil suit by the creditor on the proceeding initiated on the application filed by the debtor under the Tamil Nadu Debt Relief Act, 1980 (Act XIII of 1980) (for short the Act ), is the question that falls for determination in this case.

2. A learned single Judge of the High Court of Madras held that on filing of the civil suit the Special Tahsildar who was the competent authority under the Act ceased to have jurisdiction in the matter and the decision of the civil court would be binding on the parties The judgment was confirmed by the Division Bench. Therefore, the debtor has filed this appeal assailing the judgment in Writ Appeal No. 971/96 confirming the judgment of the learned single Judge in Writ Petition No.3409/1983.

3. The short resume of the facts relevant for appreciating the case may be stated thus :

The appellant herein mortgaged his land measuring about 3.07 acres for a sum of Rs.10.000/- in favour of one Ramummal wife of Madasami Raja on 28.2.1965. The said mortgage was assigned in favour of the respondent No. 1 for consideration on 12.6.1974. The appellant filed the application dated 11.9.1980 before the Special Tahsildar (Debt Relief), Sivakasi, seeking relief under the provisions of the Act on the ground that the annual household income during 1979 was Rs.3600/- and the immovable properties owned by him were worth Rs 22.840/-. The assignee-creditor, respondent No.1 herein, opposed the application. When the application was pending before the Special Tahsildar the assignee creditor filed O.S. No. 123/81 on 25.4.1981 in the Sub-Court, Ramanathapuram, which was re-numbered as O.S No. 150/81 on the file of Sub-Court, Srivilliputhur.

4. The Special Tahsildar, on inquiry came to the conclusion that the annual household income of the appellant s family during 1979 did not exceed Rs. 4,800/- and the value of the immovable properties did not exceed Rs.25.000/-. and therefore, the appellant-was entitled to the relief provided under the Act. The appeal filed by the respondent No.1 (assignee-creditor) before the Revenue Divisional Officer, Sivakasi, against the said order was dismissed on the ground of limitation.

5. Aggrieved by the said order the respondent No. 1 filed Writ Petition No.3409/83 in which the learned single Judge relying on the judgment of the Division Bench in K.V.S.P. Subramanian Chettiar vs. R.D.O., Arantangi, Pudukottai District, (1982 II MLJ 375), held that the Special Tahsildar could not have passed the order granting relief to the appellant on 8 1.1982 long after institution of the civil suit by the respondent no.1 and during the pendency of the said suit before the competent civil court. On the said finding the writ petition was allowed and the order of the Special Tahsildar as confirmed by the appellate authority was set aside. The learned single Judge left it to the parties to vindicate their claims before the civil court in the pending civil suit. The operative portion of the Judgment of the learned single Judge runs as follows

"In this view, the impugned orders are quashed. However, liberty is reserved to the third respondent to seek adjudication before the civil court where the suit is pending on the question "as to whether he is entitled to the benefits of the Act If the court comes to the conclusion that the third respondent herein is entitled to the benefits of the Act then the court has to dispose of the suit in accordance with section 4 of the Act The writ petition is allowed. No costs.

6. On appeal, filed by the appellant, the Division Bench of the High Court relying on the decision in K.V.S P. Subramanian case (supra) confirmed the judgment of the learned single Judge. The Division Bench made the following observations on the point

"The fact remains that the suit was pending on the date when the second respondent passed the order granting relief which had the consequence of nullifying the civil suit filed and pending before the c