Debtors have the right to seek an amendment of the schedule of debts to include provable debts, and the implications for secured and unsecured creditors must be considered.

1. The revision petitioner is the petitioner in O. P. No. 16 of 1968 which arose under the Kerala Agriculturists' Debt Relief Act, 1958 (Act 31 of 1958) (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'). The petitioner challenges the order of the trial court in I. A. No 964 of 1976 in O. P. No. 16 of 1968 rejecting his application to amend the original petition to include in its 'B' schedule a debt payable by him and to implead the creditor to whom he owes the debt.

2. The 1st respondent who alone has entered appearance in the C. R. P. is one of the secured creditors. According to him the application for amendment is not maintainable as it will disturb the order of distribution already laid down by the court in O. P. No. 16 of 1968. Counsel for the revision petitioner, however, contends that since the 'B' schedule happens to be incomplete the petitioner has a right to seek an amendment of the same for the purpose of bringing in a provable debt which has been left out.

3. The application in the trial court was filed under S.15 and 18 of the Act. S.15 relates to the right of a debtor to apply to the court for a settlement of his debts. S.18 lays down the mode of settlement of the liability of the debtor by the court. S.17 says that in the matter of determining the admissibility and the amount of each claim for the purpose of settlement, the procedure prescribed in the Insolvency Act, 1955, will mutatis mutandis apply. S.35 (2) of the Insolvency Act refers to what is a provable debt. It says:

"Save as provided by sub-S. (1), all debts and liabilities, present or future, certain or contingent, to which the debtor is subject when he ii adjudged an insolvent, or to which he may become subject before bis discharge by reason of any obligation incurred before the date of such adjudication, shall be deemed to be debts provable under this Act."

If this provision were to apply, and it is not contended to the contrary, the debt which is sought to be included in the B schedule is undoubtedly a provable debt. S.34 of the Insolvency Act allows a creditor to come forward at any time before the insolvent is discharged to tender proof of his debt and to apply to the court for an order directing his name to be entered in the schedule of creditors. S.42 of the Insolvency Act allows the debtor to apply at any time after he is adjudged an insolvent to grant him a discharge. These provisions indicate that an amendment of the schedule of creditors is permissible under the Insolvency Act until such time as a debtor is discharged. What is a provable debt for the purpose of the Debt Relief Act is a matter for determination in accordance with the provisions of the Insolvency Act. If the debt in question is, as stated above, a provable debt such a debt can be included in the schedule by a necessary amendment.

4. It may, however, be noted that unlike the Insolvency Act, there is no provision for discharge of a debtor under the Debt Relief Act. S.18 of the Act postulates the settlement of liabilities of the debtor. Under the section the debtor is entitled to 1/4 of the entire assets (not exceeding Rs. 6500/- in value) and only the remaining assets are available for settlement among the various creditors. Although the Act does not refer to a discharge of the debtor, it has to be presumed that once the entire assets are settled in the manner prescribed under S.18 in respect of all the provable debts, the debtor shall be deemed to have discharged all his liabilities as on that date in respect of the provable debts.

5. The question here is not whether a creditor can come forward to include himself in the list of creditors, but whether a debtor has a right to include a provable debt which had not been included by him when he prepared the schedule of debts. If the Act, when read with the applicable provisions of the Insolvency Act, would allow a creditor to apply to the court to include his name in the list of creditors, I see no reason why the debtor himself should no