BHADURMAL Vs. BIZAATUNNISA BEGUM
LAWS(APH)-1963-11-11
HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH
Decided on November 12,1963

BHADURMAL Appellant
VERSUS
BIZAATUNNISA BEGUM Respondents

JUDGEMENT

- (1.) This appeal raises an interesting question of limitation. The appellant is a creditor, while the respondent is a jagirdar-debtor. It is the case of the appellant that the respondent has been borrowing moneys from him on bonds and promissory notes. She borrowed a sum of Rs. 18,000.00 on the 12th Meher 1356 F. at 9% per annum, repayment being on monthly instalments of Rs. 300.00 with a condition that default of any instalment would entitle the creditor to recover the balance of the amount. Apart from this debt, there are four others Rs. 3,200.00 borrowed on a document dated the 4th Thir, 1357 F. at 12% per annum; Rs. 500.00 under a document dated 10th Meher 1357 F. at 12% per annum; Rs. 600.00by a document dated the 15th Bahman 1358 F. and Rs. 8,000.00 under a document of 10th Ardibehist, 1353 F. at 6% per annum. Except for the first debt of Rs. 18,000.00 obtained under a band dated the 12th Meher, 1355 F., all the other debts have been held by the Board to be time-barred. In respect of the first debt, it has been held that Rs. 9,000.00 were paid and the balance of the amount together with interest is due. The appellant complained that the Jagirdar Debt Settlement Board (hereinafter referred to as the Board) has not applied the provisions of Section 28, nor of Section 35 and that the four other debts which have been held to be time-barred are not time-barred. The respondent has filed a memorandum of crass-objections not only supporting the Boards decision, in respect of the four debts that have been time-barred, but also challenging the award in respect of first debt of Rs. 18,000.00 which, according to the respondent is also time-barred.
(2.) A preliminary objection has been raised by the learned Advocate for the appellant to the maintainability of the cross-objections. It Is contended that under Section 51 of the Jagirdar Debt Settlement Act, the provisions of the Civil Procedure Code apply, save as otherwise expressly provided in the Act, and since Sections 47 to 49 provide only for an appeal, it must be deemed that the provisions of the Civil Procedural Code which deal with the filing of cross-objections are specifically excluded. We find it difficult to accept this contention. What Section 51 provides is for the application of the provisions of the Civil Procedure Code to all proceedings under Chapter III, unless some other procedure is prescribed with respect to any particular matter. The provisions of Sections 47 to 49 deal with appeals and Court-fees and grounds of appeal and in so far as this provision is concerned, It must be deemed that the provisions of the Civil Procedure Code in respect thereof are (sic) (not ?) applicable. But that does not prevent the application of Order 41, Rule 22 which provides for objections to the decree or award, as if he had preferred a separate appeal. Having regard to the general scope of the application of the provisions of Civil Procedure Code under Section 51, we cannot accept the argument of the learned Advocate for the appellant that Order 41, Rule 22 does not apply to a case of appeal filed under Section 47.
(3.) The next point is one relating to limitation. It is not denied, and the learned advocate for the appellant was not able to contend otherwise, that the debts in items 2 to 5 are time-barred. But the learned advocate now insists that he may be given an opportunity to adduce evidence in respect of these debts also. We cannot allow him to adduce any additional evidence because the evidence on record is sufficient for the disposal of this question. Trough certain amounts have been noted as having been paid, no evidence has been adduced to prove, that they have been verified and signed by the debtor or her agent which is necessary under Section 20 proviso of the Limitation Act.;


Click here to view full judgement.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.