GOVINDRAM HARDATRAI Vs. JAGO LAXMAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is a miscellaneous second appeal against the order dated 21st January 1946 passed by Mr. H.C. Sen, District Judge, Wardha, in civil Appeal No. 16 B of 1945.

(2.) THE appellant is the decree-holder who applied for execution of his decree obtained against the present respondents. The judgment-debtors pleaded the bar of Section 18(1), Debt Conciliation Act. On this contention of the judgment debtors both the Courts below have postponed the execution of the decree.

(3.) IN my opinion, the two Courts below erred in accepting the certified copy of the order-sheet as an equivalent of the certificate. Under Rule 12 of the rules framed under the Act all certificates granted by the Board had to be signed by the Chairman and dated and sealed with the seal of the Board. A form was prescribed by Rule 44, which said : "A certificate under Sub-section (1) of Section 15 shall be in. Form No. 7 appended to these rules." Under Section 15(1) the Board granted the certificate' in respect of a creditor who had refused a fair offer and under the proviso to Section 21 such a creditor was postponed to all the other creditors who had entered into an agreement before the Board. Under the scheme of the Act, the executing Court could only stay its hands if the certificate was filed by the judgment-debtors as required by this proviso. In my opinion, no other form of proof was possible except the production of the certificate. This has been held by Niyogi J. in Miscellaneous Second Appeal No. 178 of 1943 decided on 12th January 1945. I respectfully concur with him that the law does require that the Courts should stay their hands only upon the production of the certificate.