1957 (7) TMI 47

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....the learned Subordinate Judge of Dindigul who dismissed the plaintiff's claim in S.C.S. No. 81 of 1954. 2. The suit was laid against defendants 1 and 2 for recovery of money due on a promissory note executed by them. The plaintiff claimed that neither of the defendants was an agriculturist. 3. The learned Subordinate Judge found that the second defendant was an agriculturist, and that si....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....o accept the contention of the learned Counsel for the petitioner, that where a suit was instituted in contravention of Section 3 of Act V of 1954, the Court in which such a suit was instituted had no option but to keep it pending, and it is not liable to be dismissed. A claim which contravened an express statutory provision could only be dismissed. That the express statutory provision in this cas....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....n 1st March, 1055. 6. The learned Counsel for the petitioner contended that as Act I of 1955 came into force on 1st March, 1955, the disposal of the suit on 19th July, 1955, should have been regulated by Section 4(4) of Act I of 1955. Section 4(4) runs: Where in any suit for the recovery of a debt pending at the commencement of this Act, the debtor claims to be an agriculturist, the Co....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....e maintainability of the claim itself. 7. Yet another contention of the learned Counsel for the petitioner was that where a suit was filed in contravention of Section 3 of Act V of 1954, it would still be a suit to which the provisions of Section 4 of Act V of 1954 would apply, that is under Section 4, the trial of such a suit would have to be stayed for the period specified in Section 4(1). Th....