ORDER:- An application was filed under Section 3 of the Maharashtra (Vidarbha Region) Agricultural Debtors' Relief Act, 1969; hereinafter referred to as the Act, by creditor Kisanlal Bachhraj Vyas on 1-4-1970 against his debtors. It seems from the record that this application was opposed by the original Non-applicants Nos. 2, 3 and 5 to 7 by filing a written statement and a contention was also raised that the said application is barred by limitation, as it was not filed before the 1st day of April 1970. It was also contended that as the application was not filed under Section 3 of the Act before the specified date, the debt stood extinguished. The applicant-creditor has also filed an application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act showing sufficient cause for not filing the application before the 1st day of April 1970.

2. The learned Civil Judge, Senior Division, Amravati, by his order dated 23rd October 1972 allowed the application filed by the applicant-creditor under Section 5 of the Limitation Act and condoned the delay. Therefore he further held that the debt is not extinguished. Against this order the present revision application is filed by the debtors.

3. Shri Chandurkar, the learned counsel for the applicant contended before me that though under Section 3 of the Act a date has been specified before which an application is to be filed, it cannot be said that any period of limitation has been prescribed by the said section within the meaning of Section 29 (2) of the Limitation Act, therefore according to Shri Chandurkar, the provisions of Section 5 of the Limitation Act will have no application to such proceedings. For this proposition he has relied upon a decision of this Court in Shankar v. Chunilal (AIR 1959 Bom 294). He further contended that even assuming that a period of limitation has been prescribed, application of the provisions of the Limitation Act, including Section 5, are expressly excluded. In this context he relied upon the provisions of Section 13 of the Act which lays down the penal consequences if such an application is not filed before the 1st day of April 1970. In support of this proposition he has relied upon a decision of the Supreme Court in Hukumdev v. Lalit Narain (AIR 1974 SC 480).

4. For properly appreciating the contentions raised by Shri Chandurkar, it will be useful to refer to the provisions of Section 3 of the Act, which reads as under :

"3 (1) Any debtor or his creditor may, subject to the provisions of this Act, make an application before the 1st day of April 1970 to the Court for adjustment of the debts of the debtor.

(2) Every application shall be made in writing in the prescribed form, and shall be signed, verified and, presented, in the prescribed manner, and shall be accompanied by a copy of the decree and a statement showing the amount paid, if any, in relation to such decree."

It is pertinent to note that initially the date specified in Section 3 of the Act was 1st day of October 1969, but the said date was subsequently 'extended by the Maharashtra Ordinance XII of 1969 and for the figures, letters and words 1st day of October 1969', the figures, letters and words 1st day of April 1970' were substituted. Therefore, the only question which is required to be decided in the present revision application is to find out as to what is the meaning of the expression, namely, "before the 1st day of April 1970".

5. It is contended by Shri Chandurkar that the phraseology used clearly indicates that the application should be filed before the 1st day of April 1970 and not on or before the 1st April 1970. In this view of the matter, according to him, the last date, namely, 1st April 1970, will have to be excluded. He further contended that an application filed on 1-4-1970 is not an application which is filed before the 1st day of April 1970. According to him, the use of the expression 'before' clearly indicates that an application should be filed on or before the 31st March 1970, then alone it could

Click Here to Read the rest of this document