(Delivered by Pandrang Row, J.)
Since judgment was pronounced in this appeal, an application has been made on behalf of the fourth respondent by his mother and guardian under Ss. 7 and 8 of the Madras Agriculturists Relief Act, IV of 1938, for scaling down the debt.
The application has been opposed on the preliminary ground that no application of this description lies after a decree has been made. According to this contention, the only application that can be made for amendment of a decree is under S. 19 of the Act which applies only to cases where the decree was made before the commencement of the Act. As there is no other provision in the Act for amendment of decrees, it is contended that the provisions of the Civil Procedure Code alone can apply. It is, however, not necessary to deal with these contentions in this particular case for the simple reason that in this case no decree has been actually drawn up and an application was made to stop the drafting of the decree pending the disposal of this application. In view of the circumstances of this particular case, namely, that the suit originally had been dismissed by the trial Court on the ground of limitation and there was no decree against this fourth respondent or any of the other defendants, there was no necessity for them to make any application for scaling down the debt until the judgment was pronounced allowing the plaintiff's claim. It is only after the judgment was pronounced in the appeal that any necessity could arise for making an application for scaling down the debt or to move the Court even orally to consider the question of scaling down the debt under the provisions of Ss. 7 and 8 of the Act before a decree was made. It is not reasonable to expect a party to put in an application which might never be necessary and it cannot be said that the omission to make an application before the judgment was pronounced debars the petitioner from making this application as early as possible after the judgment was pronounced and before a decree is actually drawn up. The law as laid down in Ss. 7 and 8 of the Act requires debts to be scaled down in a particular manner and if for some reason or other there is no need for anybody to apply for scaling down the debt as in this case, till the judgment was produced in appeal, it could not be known that the debt was one which was enforceable in law and it would be going against the spirit of the Act which is undoubtedly to give relief to debtors to dismiss applications for relief which the Legislature meant to give to debtors on such a purely technical ground as the fact that there is no particular provision made in the Act for making applications for scaling down under Ss. 7 and 8 of the Act.
We are therefore of opinion that the application is one which ought to be admitted and which has to be enquired into. In accordance with the usual practice, the application will be remitted to the Court below for disposal according to law after due enquiry, and the decree in the appeal will be subject to the final order thereon. It has been contended before us that this application which is presented on behalf of the fourth respondent by his mother and guardian is not validly presented. This matter also will be decided by the Court below to whom C.M.P No. 2749 of 1939, namely, the application to appoint the mother as guardian ad litem of the fourth respondent, will be remanded for disposal.
Application remitted for disposal.
N.R.R