Back
Bombay High Court
TULPULE
Bajirao Domaji Shreerang - Appellant
Versus
Kashirao Ajabrao Deshmukh - Respondent
Decided On : 02/14/1978
VIDARBHA DEBTORS RELIEF ACT - APPLICATION FOR ADJUSTMENT OF DEBTS - ASSIGNMENT OF DECREE - SUBSTITUTION OF ASSIGNEE - APPLICABILITY OF CIVIL PROCEDURE CODE - INTERPRETATION OF DECREE-HOLDER - EXTINGUISHMENT OF DEBT - MAHARASHTRA VIDARBHA REGION AGRICULTURAL DEBTORS' RELIEF ACT, 1969 - SECTIONS 2, 3, 4, 6, 7, 10, 13, 18, 23, 35 - CIVIL PROCEDURE CODE, 1908 - ORDER 21 RULE 16.
Fact of the Case:
Applicants 2 to 4 obtained a decree against Kashirao, but execution was stayed due to the Madhya Pradesh Temporary Postponement of Execution of Decrees Act, 1956. After the Reorganization of States, the Vidarbha Debtors Relief Act came into force, requiring creditors to file an application for adjustment of debts before 1st April 1970 to avoid extinguishment of the debt. Applicants 2 to 4 filed an application on 30th March 1970, while the assignee, Bajirao, filed a separate application on 19th June 1970, seeking substitution as the decree-holder. Both applications were dismissed by the trial court and the District Judge.
Finding of the Court:
The court held that the Vidarbha Debtors Relief Act and the Civil Procedure Code apply together, and that the proviso to Section 35 of the Act allows for the addition or striking out of parties even after the expiry of the prescribed period. The court also held that the original decree-holders, Narayan and others, were still considered the 'holders of the decree' as defined in the Civil Procedure Code, despite the assignment to Bajirao, and were therefore entitled to file the application on 30th March 1970.
Issues: 1. Whether the assignee of a decree can be considered a 'holder of the decree' under the Vidarbha Debtors Relief Act and the Civil Procedure Code. 2. Whether the original decree-holders can still file an application for adjustment of debts after assigning the decree, and if so, under what circumstances.
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The court interpreted the definition of 'decree-holder' in the Civil Procedure Code, which refers to a person in whose favor a decree has been passed, and held that this includes the original decree-holders, Narayan and others, despite the assignment to Bajirao. 2. The court also relied on the proviso to Section 35 of the Vidarbha Debtors Relief Act, which allows for the addition or striking out of parties even after the expiry of the prescribed period, and held that this provision allows for the substitution of the assignee, Bajirao, in place of the original decree-holders.
Final Decision: The court allowed the revision application, set aside the orders of the lower courts, and remanded the proceedings for further action in accordance with the law and the court's judgment.
2. The Vidarbha Debtor' s Relief Act required a creditor upon pain of his debt or decree being wiped out to file an application against his debtors before 1-10-1969 for adjustment of his dues. They are then merged into an award under the scheme of the Act. This date, I am informed, was subsequently extended to 1st April 1970. In other words, every creditor who obtained a decree and whose decree was postponed on account of the M. P. Temporary Postponement of Execution of Decrees Act, 1956 had to make an application prior to 1st April 1970 against his debtor for the purposes of an adjustment of his debts under the decree. If he failed to do so, then under S. 13 of the Vidarbha Debtor' s Act the debt due from the debtor shall become extinguished under that section. The applicants 2 to 4 before me made an application under the Vidarbha Debtors Relief Act on 30-3-1970. While this application was pending Bajirao filed another application on 19th June 1970 by which he prayed that he is the assignee of the decree passed in favour of Narayan, Sulochanabai and Gangabai. To this application he joined Kashirao as a party and styled this application as being one under O. 21, R. 16, read with S. 151 of the Civil P. C. He contended that both these decrees were assigned in his favour and the decrees have also been transferred for execution to the Civil Judge, Junior Division, Katol. He claimed that by reason of the assignment he was entitled to execute the decree and, therefore, he should be substituted in place of the applicants 2 to 4- Assignors and the proceedings be allowed to proceed further. This application was filed on 19th of June 1970 i. e. beyond 1st April 1970.
3. This application was dismissed by the learned trial Judge holding that the assignee was not entitled to file an application since the date for filing of an application by a decree-holder was already over, the application being beyond 1st April 1970. And since on the date of the application filed by Narayan, Sulochanabai and Gangabai on 30th of March 1970, the applicants had already assigned or transferred their right in favour of Bajirao, their application D/- 30-3-70 was also not tenable. In view of this, therefore, the learned Judge rejected both the main application as wel
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
