S.A. Kader, J.
1. The revision is against the order of the Subordinate Judge, Villupuram is A.S.No. 112 of 1982 returning the memorandum of appeal presented before him against the judgment and decree of the District Munsif, Villupuram, in O.S.No. 206 of 1980. The appellant-defendant is the revision petitioner.
2. The respondent filed the above suit in O.S.No. 206 of 1980 on the file of the Additional District Munsif of Villupuram, against the revision petitioner for recovery of a sum of Rs. 680.25 due on a promissory note for Rs. 500. The defendant-revision petitioner pleaded failure of consideration to the tune of Rs. 250 and claimed the benefit of the Act 13 of 1980. Both the contentions were found against by the learned District Munsif, who decreed the suit as prayed for with costs. Aggrieved thereby the defendant preferred A.S. No. 112 of 1980 on the file of the Sub-Court, Villupuram, The learned Subordinate Judge held that the appeal was not maintainable under Section 96(4), C.P.C. as the decree was in a suit of nature cognizable by the Court of Small Causes and the value of the subject-matter of the suit was less than Rs. 3,000 and as no question of law was involved. However, at the request of the appellant, the memorandum of appeal was returned for the purpose of preferring a revision. Accordingly, the appellant has taken return of the memorandum of appeal and preferred this revision. Along with the memorandum of revision the returned memorandum of appeal has also been produced into this court.
3. Mr. R.S. Venkatachari, learned Counsel for the revision petitioner, contends that the question whether the revision petitioner-defendant is entitled to the benefit of the Tamil Nadu Act 13 of 1980 is a question of law and the lower appellate court ought not to have held that the appeal was not maintainable under Section 96(4), C.P.C. This contention is rat her extravagant. Where the applicability of an enactment depends on the determination of certain facts on the basis of evidence oral and documentary and does not involve interpretation of any provision of that enactment, the question of applicability of the provisions of that enactment is a question of fact, pure and simple. In the instant case, the question whether the defendant is entitled to the benefit of the Act 13 of 1980 is dependent only on the question whether his annual income is less than Rs. 4,800. This is therefore, a pure question of fact and no question of law is involved therein. The decision of Sathiadev, J. in Subramania Mudaliar v. Palani Mudaliar, C.R.P. No. 1260 of 1983 relied on by the learned Counsel for the revision petitioner has no application whatsoever. It has nowhere been held therein that the claim to the benefit of Act 13 of 1980 or the Act 31 of 1976 is a question of law. In fact, this question did not at all arise for consideration before the learned Judge. The revision before the learned Judge had been filed not against the judgment of the appellate court, as in the case before me, but against the judgment of the trial Court in O.S.No. 206 of 1980, challenging the finding of the learned District Munsif of Villupuram that the defendant was not entitled to the benefit of the Act 13 of 1980 or the Act 31 of 1976. The learned Judge found that the learned District Munsif has not properly analysed the evidence and given separate finding in respect of the two enactments and remanded the matter for fresh disposal. This decision has, therefore, no relevance to the matter on hand as to whether the question of the benefit claimed under the Act 13 of 1980 is a question of fact or a question of law. I hold that no question of law is involved in this matter and the learned Subordinate Judge has rightly held that the appeal was maintainable under Section 96(4), C.P. Code.
4, Even taking this revision as one against the judgment of the District Munsif, I find no ground whatsoever to interfere with his conclusion. The learned District Munsif has scrupulously analysed the evidence oral and documentary and has come to the conclusion that the annual income of the defendant-revision-petitioner far exceeded the statutory limit of Rs. 4,800 and he was not a debtor within the meaning of and not entitled to the benefits of the Act 13 of 1980. The said finding does not suffer from any infirmity.
5. In the result, the revision fails and is dismissed. No costs.