Skip to content


Vaddi Venkat Reddy Vs. M. Chinna Narayana - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
SubjectLimitation
CourtAndhra Pradesh High Court
Decided On
Case NumberCase Referred No. 102 of 1976
Judge
Reported inAIR1978AP309
ActsAndhra Pradesh ( Telengana Area) Money Lenders Act, (1349 Fasli) - Sections 12; Limitation Act, 1963 - Schedule - Article 126
AppellantVaddi Venkat Reddy
RespondentM. Chinna Narayana
Appellant AdvocateK. Pratap Reddy, Adv.
Respondent AdvocateT. Venugopal Reddy, Adv.
Excerpt:
limitation - contrary provisions - section 12 of andhra pradesh (telengana area) money lenders act, (1349 fasli) and article 126 of limitation act, 1963 - application of judgment debtor under section 12 seeking payment of decretal amount by installments - whether limitation period prescribed in act of 1963 applicable in applications under section 12 - nothing in section 12 mentions about limitation period - andhra pradesh (telengana area) money lenders act enacted for helping judgment debtors from exploitation and no limitation period prescribed in it - held, limitation period prescribed in act of 1963 inapplicable in application of judgment under section 12. - - the money lenders act is a beneficial legislation intended to regulate the transactions of money lending by making better..........between the period limitation prescribed by art. 126 of the limitation act and s. 12 of the money lenders act no. v of 1349 - f., and therefore made a reference to this court for resolving the conflict.2. the relevant facts are these : the judgement debtor filed an application under s. 12 of the money leanders act seeking payment of the decretal amount in instalments the decree against him was passed in o. s. 8 of 1974 on the file of the district munisff, kollapur on 14-7-1975 and the application i. a. 2 of 1976 was made by him on 19-1-1976. on notice to the decree holder, the decree holder raised on the objection that in view of the period of limitation prescribed by art. 126 of the limitation act, the application of the judgement debtor was not maintainable. the district munsiff.....
Judgment:

Obul Reddi, C.J.

1. This is a reference under S. 113 of the Civil P. C. The District Munisf, Kollapur was of the view that there is a conflict between the period limitation prescribed by Art. 126 of the Limitation Act and S. 12 of the Money Lenders Act No. V of 1349 - F., and therefore made a reference to this Court for resolving the conflict.

2. The relevant facts are these : The judgement debtor filed an application under S. 12 of the Money Leanders Act seeking payment of the decretal amount in instalments The decree against him was passed in O. S. 8 of 1974 on the file of the District Munisff, Kollapur on 14-7-1975 and the application I. A. 2 of 1976 was made by him on 19-1-1976. On notice to the decree holder, the decree holder raised on the objection that in view of the period of limitation prescribed by Art. 126 of the Limitation Act, the application of the judgement debtor was not maintainable. The District Munsiff though made the reference to this Court had, however, expressed his opinion that S. 12 of the Money Leaders Act being a special local law applicable to the Telenganga area., is the provision that is applicable Art. 126 of the Limitation Act prescribes for the payment of amount of the decree by instalments, thirty days period of limitation from the date of the decree is prescribed for making an application. The application for payment by instalments was not filed by the judgement debtor in this case within the period of limitation prescribed relying upon S. 12 of the Money Lenders Act which to the extent relevant provides:-

'S. 12 (1) : The court may, in respect of a decree without instalments passed after the commencement of this Act, at any time on the application of judgement debtor after notice to the decree holder, direct that the amount of the said decree paid in such number of instalments and subject to such conditions and on such dates as may, in its opinion, be proper having regard to the circumstances of the judgement debtor and the amount of the decree.

(2) ... ... .....

Provided that such power shall not be exercised more than once in respect of the same decree.'

Admittedly, this was the first application filed by the judgement-debtor. A reading of S. 12 of the Money Lenders Act makes it clear that no period of limitation is prescribed for payment of the decretal amount by instalments. The only requirement is that the Court should order notice the decree holder before it directs that the decree amount shall be paid in such number of instalments and subject to such conditions as it may be prescribed. The Money Lenders Act is a beneficial legislation intended to regulate the transactions of money lending by making better provisions for its control so that money lenders may not exploit the debtors. It is self contained Act providing the procedure to be followed in suits for recovery of loans. It is with a view to afford facilities to a debtor that S.12 had been introduced so that it may be possible for the judgement debtor to pay in instalments the decretal amount. The legislature therefore did not prescribe any particular period for making an application to the Court of payment by instalment. If the decree did not provide for payment of instalments, then under S. 12 it would be open to the judgement debtor to make an application. The Money Lenders Act being a special enactment providing for no particular period of limitation the Limitation Act which provides for a specific period of limitation is not applicable. Art. 137 applies to applications other than applications under Art. 126. We therefore hold that the application filed by the judgement debtor is maintainable. The reference is answered accordingly.

3. Reference answered accordingly.


Save Judgments// Add Notes // Store Search Result sets // Organizer Client Files //