KEETHA RAMA MURTHY v. BATHINI NAGA RAJU

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE B.SESHASAYANA REDDY C.R.P.NO.4837 OF 2009 O R D E R: This Civil Revision Petition is directed against the order dated 10-9- 2009 passed in E.A.No.145 of 2007 in E.P.No.118 of 2004 in O.S.No.29 of 2003 on the file of Junior Civil Judge, Huzurnagar, Nalgonda District, whereby and whereunder the learned Junior Civil Judge dismissed the application filed by the JDR under section 47 r/w 151 CPC and Section 4(1) of A.P. Agricultural Indebtedness (Relief) Act, 1977 (for short Act, 1977). Notice before admission came to be ordered on 19-10-2009. The respondent has entered appearance through a counsel. Heard learned counsel appearing for the parties. Background facts of the case, in nutshell, leading to filing of this revision by the JDR in E.P.No.118 of 2004 are: The respondent herein filed a suit being O.S.No.29 of 2003 for recovery of money basing on the pro-note. The suit ended in decree. Thereafter, the plaintiff/DHR filed E.P.No.118 of 2004 and sought for sale of E.P. schedule properties. The petitioner/JDR filed E.A.No. 145 of 2007 under section 47 r/w 151 CPC and Section 4(1) of Act, 1977 seeking declaration that the decretal debt is deemed to have been discharged. The decree holder filed a counter resisting the application. It was the contention of the decree holder that Act, 1977 is not applicable to the decretal debt since the suit pro-note is subsequent to commencement of Act, 1977. The learned Junior Civil Judge, on considering the material brought on record and after hearing counsel for either parties, came to the conclusion that the suit pronote is subsequent to Act, 1977 and therefore the judgment debtor is not entitled to claim the benefit. The order-dated 10.9.2009 passed in E.A.NO.145 of 2007 by learned Junior Civil Judge, Huzurnagar is assailed in this revision. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is a small farmer and therefore u/s 4(1) of Act, 1977 the decretal debt is deemed to have been discharged. Section 4(1) of the Act, 1977 reads as under: “ 4(1): Discharge of debts and relief to debtors: Notwithstanding anything in the Andhra Pradesh (Andhra Area) Agriculturists Relief Act, 1938 the Andhra Pradesh (Telangana Area) Money Lenders Act, 1349F, the Andhra Pradesh (Andhra Pradesh (Andhra Area) Pawn Brokers Act, 1943, the Andhra Pradesh (Telangana Area) Agricultural Debtor’s Relief Act, 1956, the Andhra Pradesh (Scheduled Area) Money Lenders Regulation, 1960, the Andhra Pradesh Indebted Agriculturists, Landless Labourers and Artisans (Temporary Relief) Act, 1976 or any other law for the time being in force or any contract or other instrument having the force of law and save as otherwise provided in this Act with effect on and from the commencement of this Act, every debt, including interest, if any, owing to any creditor by an agricultural labourer, a rural artisan or a small farmer shall be deemed to be wholly discharged. 2(a) No Civil Court shall entertain any suit or other proceeding against the debtor for the recovery of any debt including amount of the interest, if any, which is deemed to be discharged under sub-section (1)….” Thus as could be seen from the aforesaid provisions of Act 7/77, that every debt including interest due by an agricultural labourer, rural artisan or a small farmer with effect on and from the date of the commencement of the Act shall be deemed to be wholly discharged. Thus, any debt subsisting on the date of commencement of the Act by a debtor to a creditor is wiped of. In order to claim the relief that the debt shall be deemed to be wholly discharged under Section 4(1) of the Act, it has to be established that the debt must have been incurred before the commencement of the Act: (b) that the debt was subsisting at the commencement of the Act and (c) that the person that incurred the debt must be an agricultural labouror, a rural artisan or a small farmer at the commencement of the Act. Thus, when once the aforesaid conditions are satisfied the debt shall be deemed to have been discharged and that the debtor was relieved of the liability to pay the debt. And when once the debt was deemed to be discharged at the commencement of the Act on fulfilling of certain conditions it could not be said to revive subsequent to the commencement of the Act. A Division Bench of our High Court in M.Pullaiah Vs. B.Thimma Reddy[1] considered the scope of Section 4(1) of Act 7 of 1977 and held that the relevant date for the purpose of deciding whether a person was entitled to the relief under Section 4(1) of the Act is the date of commencement of the Act. Admittedly, the date of commencement of the Act is 29.12.1976. For applicability of Section 4(1), the debt must been incurred by the defendant before commencement of the Act. The definition of `debtor’ as defined in Section 3(j) of Act 7/77 reads as hereunder: “3(j) `debtor’ means an agricultural labourer, a rural artisan or a small farmer, who has borrowed or incurred any debt before the commencement of the Act”. Indisputably, the DHR in the instant case has been contacted by the petitioner-judgment debtor subsequent to the commencement of the Act 7/77. Therefore, Section 4(1) of Act 7/77 is wholly inapplicable and in which case, the order impugned in the revision does not suffer from any illegality or irregularity warranting interference of this Court in exercise of powers under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. Accordingly, this revision fails and the same is hereby dismissed. 16th February, 2010. (B.Seshasayana Reddy,J) THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE B.SESHASAYANA REDDY C.R.P.NO.4837 OF 2009 16-02-2010 [1] 1989(1) ALT 86