The interpretation of key legal provisions such as Section 9 and Section 15 of the Debt Conciliation Act, and the application of the C.P. Money-lenders Act to a non-resident creditor were central to the judgment.

1. This and First Appeal No. 2 of 1941, arise respectively out of Civil Suit No. 8-B/142-B of 1939 and Civil Suit No. 9-B/143-B of 1939 which were consolidated together for trial. This judgment governs the disposal of both the appeals. The appellant, Pyarelalsa, and his nephew, Keshrichandsa, who died after filing the sister appeal and who is now represented by his heir, formed a Hindu joint family carrying on money-lending business under the name and style of ''Pyarelalsa Keshrichandsa Pandhana''; and Pyarelalsa was the manager. This firm of Pandhana borrowed money and bought goods on credit from the respondent's firm known as ''Bhagwan Dass Champalal, Indore'' represented by Seth Champalal. On 20-7-1934 Pyarelalsa on behalf of his joint family firm of Pandhana executed a promissory note for Rs. 8300 which was the balance found due on their dealings up to that date. Subsequently a Debt Conciliation Board came to be established at Khandwa with jurisdiction to settle the agricultural debts of some villages including Pandhana. Pyarelalsa and Keshrichandsa, with a view to take advantage of the Debt Conciliation Board, approached the respondent Seth Champalal at Indore on 3-7-1936 and requested him to divide their joint liability and accept a separate instrument of obligation from each of the two branches of the firm Pyarelalsa Keshrichandsa Pandhana. On making accounts, a balance of Rs. 10,302 was found due and Pyarelalsa and Keshrichandsa executed severally two promissory notes Exs. P-4 and P-61, for Rs. 5151 at Indore in the Holkar State agreeing to repay on demand these amounts with interest at 0-12-0 per cent. per mensem. Keshrichandsa later on borrowed Rs. 225 in cash and purchased on credit ornaments worth Rs. 654-14-0.

2. Pyarelalsa and Keshrichandsa separately applied to the Debt Conciliation Board at Khandwa on 9-7-1936 for settlement of their debts due to the respondent Seth Champalal. In spite of this application Keshrichandsa again purchased ornaments worth Rs. 648-8-0 on credit.

3. The Debt Conciliation Board fixed 3-9-1937, as the date for the filing of creditors' account under Section 8(1), Debt Conciliation Act, and eventually on 7-3-1938 effected settlement with some of Pyarelalsa's creditors directing Seth Champalal who refused to accept the settlement to file a fully verified account together with accounts in terms of Section 9 or Section 9A of the Act on 25-3-1938. A similar direction was given in Keshrichandsa's case to Seth Champalal on 2-2-1938. Later on, both the cases were fixed for 17-6 1938 for settlement with the remaining creditors of Pyarelalsa and Keshrichandsa including Seth Champalal. On that day he persisted with his refusal to accept the settlement and he was asked to produce the original promissory notes on the next day, that is on 18-6-1938, on which day the Debt Conciliation Board passed an order under Section 15(1), Debt Conciliation Act, declaring that he had failed to file a properly verified account in terms of Section 9 or Section 9A and the original documents, and that the documents (namely promissory notes) were inadmissible in evidence under Section 9(3), Debt Conciliation Act. On 13-9-1938 Seth Champalal filed applications for review of the orders passed in both the cases but they were dismissed on 19-9-1938.

4. Seth Champalal, after serving notices on Pyarelalsa and Keshrichandsa demanding payment of his debts due on the promissory notes separately executed by them in his favour on 3-7-1936, filed suits to recover Rs. 6537-12-0 on the basis of the promissory note (Exhibit P-4) executed by Pyarelalsa and Rs. 8472-12-6 from Keshrichandsa on the basis of his promissory note (Exhibit P-61) executed on the same day and also the other khata dues on account of cash advance and credit purchases. As already stated above these two cases were consolidated for trial as they involve common questions of fact and law.

5. The plaintiff Seth Champalal contested the correctness of the allegations