Skip to content


Kali Sundar Roy and ors. Vs. Khum Chandra Bothra and anr. - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
SubjectCivil
CourtKolkata
Decided On
Reported inAIR1940Cal473
AppellantKali Sundar Roy and ors.
RespondentKhum Chandra Bothra and anr.
Excerpt:
- .....appellants in this case and it appears' that they applied for a settlement of their debts to the debt settlement board at kooganchi on 28th june 1939. the board recorded an order to the effect that the particulars which had been given relating to the property of the judgment-debtors could not be believed and it was held that the appellants were not agriculturists. the board, therefore, dismissed their application. on a later date, it appears that they filed a further application for the settlement of the same debts before the debt settlement board at patul, which issued a notice to the learned munsif under section 34, bengal agricultural debtors act. it has been held by both the courts below that the issue of this notice was illegal and it is against the decision of the learned.....
Judgment:

Edgley, J.

1. The judgment-debtors are the appellants in this case and it appears' that they applied for a settlement of their debts to the Debt Settlement Board at Kooganchi on 28th June 1939. The Board recorded an order to the effect that the particulars which had been given relating to the property of the judgment-debtors could not be believed and it was held that the appellants were not agriculturists. The Board, therefore, dismissed their application. On a later date, it appears that they filed a further application for the settlement of the same debts before the Debt Settlement Board at Patul, which issued a notice to the learned Munsif under Section 34, Bengal Agricultural Debtors Act. It has been held by both the Courts below that the issue of this notice was illegal and it is against the decision of the learned District Judge of Rajshahi with regard to this matter that this appeal is directed. The main contention urged by the learned advocate for the appellants in this case is that Section 8(5), Bengal Agricultural Debtors Act, allows a debtor to file more than one application relating to the same debt as has been done in this case. The sub-section is to the effect that

notwithstanding anything contained in Sub-section (1), a Board may for good and sufficient reason entertain a further application in respect of any debt incurred before the date of a first application under Sub-section (1) or Sub-section (2), whether such application was made to it or to any other Board except in certain circumstances which are then set forth. In my view, this sub-section merely means that if the debtor finds that through oversight or otherwise he has omitted to mention a particular debt in his (first application, he may include it in certain circumstances in a further application to the Board, but, in my judgment, it is no authority for the proposition that, after an application to a Debt Settlement Board has been dismissed, another application may be made to another Debt Settlement Board relating to the same debt. It appears from a perusal of the order which was passed by the Keoganehi Debt Settlement Board on 28th June 1939 that this order of dismissal was intended to be one under Section 17(1)(a) of the Act. The only procedure which has been prescribed in the Bengal Agricultural Debtors Act for setting aside an order of dismissal is by way of appeal or review under Sections 40 and H of the Act. If this procedure is not followed, it must be taken that an order of dismissal such as that which was recorded on 28th June 1939 is final. The effect of the order which was recorded by the Keoganchi Board on 28th June 1939 was to exclude the debt from the scope of the Act. Section 34 only applies in the case of debts which fall within the scope of the Bengal Agricultural Debtors Act and, this being the case, the executing Court was quite justified in not staying proceedings. In my view, the decision of the learned District Judge is correct. It is therefore affirmed and this appeal is dismissed with costs. The hearing fee is assessed at one gold mohur. Leave to appeal under Section 15 of the Letters Patent is refused.


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