Order dismissing the suit set aside.

V. Balasubramanyan, J.

1. The Tami Nadu Indebted Agriculturists (Temporary) Relief Act (XV of 1976) by Section 3 laid down that no suit for the recovery of a debt shall be instituted against any agriculturist in any civil Court on and from the date of commencement of the Act and before the expiry of one year from the said date. Under Section 1 (3), the Act was deemed to have come into force from 15th day of January, 1976. The one year period referred to in Section 3 would thus expire on 15th January, 1977. The moratorium period of one year was extended from time to time by the subsequent enactments passed by the State Legislature. In overall result, the period of moratorium against filing of suits for recovery of debts subsisted from 15th January, 1976 to 15th July, 1978.

2. The petitioner in this revision brought a suit against the respondent during the subsistence of the moratorium on 20th September, 1976. The suit was instituted on the file of the Sub-Court, Madurai. This suit although its institution was barred by the statute nevertheless appears to have been numbered as Original Suit No. 106 of 1976. In Interlocutory Application No. 89 of 1977, the defendant thereupon moved the Court to dismiss the suit on the score that the suit had been instituted in contravention of the bar under Section 3 of the Act. The Court allowed the said application, and dismissed the suit, as a consequence. The said order allowing the application was made on 19th July, 1977. This revision has been brought by the plaintiff as agaist the order allowing Interlocutory Application No. 89 of 1977.

3. It may be noticed that on the date when the Court below allowed the first defendant's application, namely, 13th July, 1977, the period of moratorium was subsisting. But the question is, whether the dismissal of the suit can be supported on the construction of Section 3 of the Act. In any case, now that the period of stay (sic) under Act (XV of 1976) as extended by Act (II of 1977), had spent itself out, the question is whether this Court should not take note of subsequent developments and look at the matter from a realistic point of view, on the basis of the existing situation, here and now. Section 3 of the Act, no doubt, bars the initiation of the suit during the period of moratorium. But, the Act does not say how a suit which has been brought on the file of the Court in contravention of this interdict by the Legislature should be dealt with by the Court. Several modes of dealing with such a suit suggest themselves to one's mind. The receiving section of the Court, by a ministerial disposal can reject or return the plaint as one filed in contravention of the statute. The Court itself can hold in abeyance the number of the suit. Or the Court may put off dealing with the suit effectively staying its hand in the suit, for the duration of the moratorium. The Court below had done none of those things, but had chosen to dismiss the suit altogether. The question is whether this is an appropriate thing to do, even when Section 3 had been clearly contravened.

4. I do not think it, necessary to deal at length with the question of construction of the section or with the question as to the consequences of non-compliance with the section. For, this matter has. been dealt with in extenso in a judgment of Ratnam, J., reported in Srihari Babu Naidu v. S. Alamelu Ammal .

5. Mr. Sivamani, learned Counsel for the respondent, submitted that the decision of Ratnam, J., has to be considered as not quite consistent with an earlier decision of a learned single Judge of this Court by Rajagopalan, J., reported in RM. M. Ramanathan Chettiar v. Ramaswami Pittai and Anr. A reference to the judgment of Ratnam, J., shows that technically the decision of Rajagopalan, J., was not binding on him, since the earlier ruling was rendered under a different Act. T agree with Ratnam, J., that the principle of stare decisis would only apply if the previous decision was precisely on the same pr