Balwantrao vs Shamrao

This appeal is against a judgment of Mudholkar J. in Miscellaneous First Appeal No. 161 of 1949 decided on 29th December 1952.

The appellants, who are executing a decree which, according to them, has come into existence as a result of a certificate by the Deputy Commissioner u/s 13(3) of the Central Provinces and Berar Relief of Indebtedness Act, contend that the decision of the single Judge in holding that the certificate was invalid is incorrect. The facts of the case are as follows:

The Debt Relief Court was moved to frame a scheme in connection with a debt which it scaled down to Rs. 12,581 and made it payable by 25 instalments of Rs. 500 each commencing from 15-5-1943. The contention of the present appellants is that the first two instalments which fell due on 15th May 1943 and 15th May 1944 were defaulted by the judgment-debtors under that scheme. They contend that as a result of this failure they were entitled to get a certificate u/s 13(3) of the Relief of Indebtedness Act They moved the Deputy Commissioner for the grant of a certificate. We need not go into the history of the case before the Revenue Courts, suffice it to say that the Commissioner ordered that the certificate be issued and the Board of Revenue upheld his order. This certificate was granted by the Deputy Commissioner on 17th May 1949. It is this certificate and the national decree which under the Act comes into existence that the present appellants seek to execute.

It was held by the executing Court and also by the learned single Judge whose judgment is impugned here that the Deputy Commissioner was incompetent to issue the certificate on that day in view of the provisions of the Central Provinces and Berar Relief of Agriculturist Debtors (Temporary Measures) Act, 1949. That Act was passed to grant temporary relief to agriculturist debtors and by its 4th section provided as follows:-

All proceedings u/s 13 of the Central Provinces and Berar Debt Conciliation Act, 1933, or section 13 of the Central Provinces and Berar Relief of Indebtedness Act, 1939 against an agriculturist debtor pending before a revenue officer having jurisdiction in the area to which this Act applied shall be stayed till the first day of January 1950 and all attachment of growing crops, agricultural produce, live-stock, and other moveable property of a perishable nature made in such proceedings shall be withdrawn.

It appears that the attention of the Deputy Commissioner was not drawn to the provisions of this Act when he signed the certificate after the Commissioner''s order. The learned counsel for appellants contends that section 4 is connected with section 3 of the Act, and that relief by stoppage of proceedings is contemplated only in those cases where instalments are postponed u/s 3. We do not agree with this submission. It is quite obvious that the words "all proceedings" contemplate proceedings of every description. There are no words of limitation in the section, nor words can be said to connect section 4 with section 3, The generality of section 4, therefore, must stand. Taking the normal meaning of the words "all proceedings'''' we are satisfied that the present was a proceeding in which the Deputy Commissioner became incompetent to deal with the matter pending before him till the first day of January 1950.

It is contended by the learned counsel for the appellants that the Commissioner''s order as well as the order of the Board of Revenue were both prior to the date of the Act and all that remained to be done was the ministerial act of drawing up the certificate. Reliance was placed upon Mungniram Marwari vs. Gursahi Nand ( ILR 17 Cal. 347). That case is an authority only for the facts decided there. It was explained in Subba Naick vs. Ram Ayyar ( ILR 40 Mad. 775 -778). In the present context the issuance of a certificate is the sine qua non for the execution of the national decree. The certificate can only be issued by the Deputy Commissioner, and till the certificate is issued no action to execute the national decree can be taken. It has been ruled in the Nagpur High Court in several cases that even if an order-sheet is produced showing that certificate was ordered to be issued it is not enough. The Court can only act upon a valid certificate and nothing else. Applying that consideration to the present case it is clear enough that the Deputy Commissioner who issued the certificate had not terminated the revenue proceedings u/s 13 of the Relief of In extends Act till the certificate was signed. That clearly postulates that the proceeding''s were pending Once this is accepted, section 4 applies with great force. Under that section, all proceedings, of whatever character they may be, were stayed till the first day of January 1950. The Deputy Commissioner, therefore, was incompetent to draw up the certificate before that date was reached This is in effect the decision of the two Courts below. We see no reason to differ.

The appeal fails and is dismissed; but in the circumstances of the case and considering the fact that the respondent was not called upon to reply, we see no reason to award costs. The costs in the lower Courts shall be as ordered by the learned single Judge.