AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Gopalan Nambiyar J.
The revi-sion arises out of an order of the court below in an application filed u/s 11 of the Kerala Agriculturists'' Debt Relief Act (Act 11 of 1970) for amendment of the application; and yet another application filed for impleading a party to the said application. Both these applications (I. A. Nos. 764/74 and 765/74) were dealt with in a common order and allowed by the Munsiff of Neyyattinkara.
In this revision petition the point canvassed by the Counsel for the petitioners is that in an application filed u/s 11 of Act 11 of 1970, there will be no warrant to apply the provisions of the CPC and to entertain or allow either an application for amendment of the petition or for impleading additional parties. It was pointed out that where various provisions of the CPC have been made applicable to proceedings under the Act, the same has been done by specific provisions such as what is found in Section 7 (7) of the Act and Section 14 (5) of the Act. It was stressed that such a provision is significantly and absolutely absent in Section 11 of the Act.
We are not impressed by this argument. We think the matter is governed by the principle formulated by the Privy Council in AIR 1948 12 (Privy Council) The Judicial Committee there observed:--
"Where a legal right is in dispute and the ordinary Courts of the country are seized of such dispute, the Courts are governed by the ordinary rules of procedure applicable thereto and an appeal lies if authorised by such rules, notwithstanding that the legal right claimed arises under a special statute which does not in terms confer a right of appeal".
The decision of the Privy Council was approved by the Supreme Court in National Sewing Thread Co. Ltd. Vs. James Chadwick and Bros. Ltd. (J. and P. Coats Ltd., Assignee), . It has also been followed on several occasions. It is enough to refer to the recent Full Bench decision of this Court in Vareed Ouseph Vs. Mary, . On the above principle, we are of the opinion that even in the absence of an express provision, the ordinary rules of procedure would be attracted to the trial and disposal of an application u/s 11 of the Act. Therefore, the court below was right in entertaining and allowing the applications for amendment and for im-pleading of parties. We dismiss this revision petition, but without costs.