Sanction is hereby accorded to the refund of Rs. 3237-8/- (Rupees three thousand, two hundred and thirty seven and annas eight) only to M/s Banwari Lal Ram Prasad of Sadulpur out of Rs. 3700/- deposited by them as Super administration charges vide challan No. 112 dated 5-2-53 for export of 1850 maunds gram outside Rajasthan. This is subject to the verification of the deposit and other formalities as laid down in Finance Department Rules.
This is in final settlement of the claims as agreed by the party.
Civil Supplies, Rajasthan,
5. The argument of the Deputy Government Advocate is that because this document speaks of certain formalities of verification etc which were to be gone into even after the passing of this order before the plaintiff could claim the refund of Rs. 3237/-8/- this document was an acknowledgement only. I am afraid, I am not in agreement with this contention. In my opinion, this document is not an acknowledgement and was rightly made by the plaintiff as the basis of the suit. It not only speaks that out of the sum of Rs. 3700- deposited by the plaintiff, the plaintiff firm was entitled to the refund of a sum of Rs. 3237-8/-, but it further states that this was in the final settlement of the claim as agreed by the party. So far as the portion of the document which refers to the verification of the deposit and further formalities, suffice it to say that it was written in a most formal manner otherwise a few lines above even challan number and the date of the deposit of the amount has been given in the order.
6. Section 25(3) of the Act runs as under:
Section 25. Agreement without consideration void unless it is in writing and registered. - An agreement made without consideration is void, unless - ...(3) it is a promise, made in writing and signed by the person to be charged therewith, or by his agent generally or specially authorised in that behalf, to pay wholly or in part debt of which the creditor might have enforced payment but for limitation of suit.
In any of those cases, such an agreement is a contract.
7. The lower Court also relied upon this very provision of law. The learned Deputy Government Advocate urged that the deposited amount cannot be treated as a debt because the State of Rajasthan did not borrow any loan from the plaintiff firm. In my opinion, the word 'debt' is not to be taken in the technical sense as urged by the learned Deputy Government Advocate. It is to be taken in its ordinary meaning and viewed from that angle this would mean any ascertained some of money recoverable by action. A similar point arose in Doraisami Padayachi and Anr. v. Vaithilinga Padayachi and Ors. A.I.R. 1918 Mad. 1145 (F.B.), wherein it was held that the word 'debt' used in Section 25 of the Act must be taken to have been used in its ordinary meaning of a sum payable in respect of a money demand recoverable by action. This view was followed in Bharat National Bank, Ltd. v. Bishan Lal and Anr. A.I.R. 1922 Lah. 212, wherein it was laid down that debt for purposes of Section 25 of the Act can be defined as a sum payable in respect of money recoverable by action. In the instant case also the aim is ascertained. It is Rs. 3287/-8/-. It is recoverable by action and as such the disputed amount can very easily be treated as a debt.
8. No other point was urged. The result, therefore, is that this appeal fails and the same is dismissed with costs.