JOSEPH VARKEY Vs. JOSEPH MATHEW
HIGH COURT OF KERALA
Click here to view full judgement.
(1.)The judgment debtor applied under S.7 of Act 31 of 1958 for amendment of the decree passed after the said Act came into force. The application was dismissed on the ground that the judgment debtor had forfeited benefits under the Act by default in payment of six consecutive instalments. He has preferred this Civil Revision Petition from the said order.
(2.)The consequence of committing default in payment of six consecutive instalments is provided for by the Proviso to S.4(5) of the Act. All that the debtor forfeits by such default is the benefit of Clause.2 and 3 of S.4. i. e. the right to pay the debt in instalments. It cannot be said that he will forfeit the other benefits conferred by the Act.
(3.)Counsel for the respondent urged that the provisions regarding interest in S.5 of the Act were only for the purpose of payment under S.4 and that when the benefits under S.4 were forfeited by default, there was no scope for the application of S, 5. I am unable to agree. There is nothing in S.5 which restricts its operation to oases of payment under S.4. The Act contemplates payments other than under S.4 and a debtor who has committed default in payment of six consecutive instalments can claim the benefit of amendment of the decree in the light of S.5 of the Act.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.