Maintainability of the subsequent suit for balance amount.

S. Mohan, J.

1. An interesting question arises in this civil revision petition. The facts are as follows: The petitioner as plaintiff preferred S.C.S.No. 23 of 1980 for the recovery of a sum of Rs. 463.25. The defendant (respondent-herein), admittedly, had borrowed a sum of Rs. 600 from the plaintiff and executed a promissory note in his favour on 27th January, 1975, agreeing to Day the principal together with interest at 12% p.a. In view of the publication of Ordinance 5 of 1978, S.C.S.No. 154 of 1978 on the file of the District Munsif's Court, Kovilpatti the suit was filed for recovery of Rs. 392.95, that is, half towards principal and interest, and by passing the receipt Exhibit B-1 the claim was settled on 14th November, 1978 and the claim was satisfied. Thereafter, Tamil Nadu Act 40 of 1979 came into force. As per the provisions of the said Act, the plaintiff is entitled to recover the full amount as recited in the promissory note. Giving credit to the amount received under Ex.B-1, for the remaining amount, namely, Rs. 463.25 the suit S.C.S.No. 23 of 1980 came to be filed. In defence it was contended that the suit was not maintainable in law, in so far as Exhibit B-1 in full and final settlement of the claim due under the promissory note had been passed and since the claim was made in accordance with the provisions of Tamil Nadu Act 40 of 1978, a further suit will not He merely because the Tamil Nadu Act 40 of 1979 contains different provisions.

2. The learned District Munsif who tried the suit was of the view that, though as per the provisions of Tamil Nadu Act 40 of 1978, a creditor was entitled to claim only half of the amount and that right could be enforced only in respect of half of the amount of the debt payable by the debtor, inasmuch as Ex.B-1 had been passed on 14th November, 1978, the present suit would not lie. This is because Section 33(2) of Tamil Nadu Act 40 of 1979 states that the earlier proceedings would not in any way be invalidated. What was claimed in S.C.S.No. 154 of 1978 having been paid fully and full satisfaction having been rendered, the present suit would not lie. It is to revise this order the plaintiff has come forward with this revision.

3. Mr. N. Varadarajan, learned Counsel for the petitioner strenuously urged that the embargo or the disability under the provisions of Tamil Nadu Act 40 of 1978 having been removed by the provisions of Tamil Nadu Act 40 of 1979 on and from 14th July, 1978, the view of the court below cannot be held to be tenable. The construction placed on Section 33(2) of Tamil Nadu Act 40 of 1979 is again wrong. In opposition to this, learned Counsel for the respondent would state that the effect of passing of Ex.B-1, the full satisfaction memo would be that the present suit is barred. This is squarely covered by Sub-section (2) of Section 33 of Tamil Nadu Act 40 of 1979. The court below is right in its conclusion and no interference is warranted.

4. Having regard to these respective contentions it is necessary for me to refer to some of the provisions of Tamil Nadu Act 40 of 1979, called the Tamil Nadu Debt Relief Act, 1979. This Act repeals the earlier Act of the same title, namely the Tamil Nadu Debt Relief Act, 1978. By a reading of Section 31 of Act 40 of 1979, it is seen that "the Tamil Nadu Debt Relief Act, 1978 (Tamil Nadu Act 40/78) except Section 40 thereof (hereinafter referred to as the said Act) is hereby repealed". By this Act, namely, Tamil Nadu Act 40 of 1979, the liability of the debtor in relation to scaling, down has been provided for under Section 7 and Sub-section (1) runs as follows:

Notwithstanding anything contained in any law for the time being in force or any contract or instrument having force by virtue of any such law and save as otherwise expressly provided in this Act, all debts payable by any debtor on the 14th day of July, 1978 shall be scaled down in accordance with the provisions of this chapter." (proviso omitted as unnecessary.

On this bas