ORDER
Kulkarni, J.
1. This is a plaintiff’s revision against the judgment and decree dated 11-10-1984 passed by the Civil Judge, Chikodi, in S.C. No. 61 of 1983, on his file, dismissing the same.
2. The plaintiff urged that the defendant, on receiving Rs. 1,000/- in cash from him on 10-12-1980, executed the suit promissory note. The defendant did not pay back any money. Hence, the suit to recover Rs. 1,360/-. The defendant resisted the suit and also urged that he was a ‘debtor’ within the meaning of the Karnataka Debt Relief Act, 1980.
3. The trial Court held that the defendant had received Rs. 1,000/- from the plaintiff on 10-12-1980 and executed the suit promissory note. It also held that the defendant was a ‘debtor’ under the Karnataka Debt Relief Act, 1980, and hence, came to the conclusion that the whole debt was discharged and wiped out. Taking this view, the trial Court dismissed the suit. Hence, the revision.
4. The conclusion of the Court below that the defendant, on receiving Rs. 1,000/- on 10-12-1980, executed the suit promissory note, is unassailable and it needs to be confirmed, The suit transaction is dated 10-12-1980.
5. Section 1(2) of the Karnataka Debt Relief Act, 1980, reads :
“It shall be deemed to have come into force on the Fifteenth day of November, 1979.”
Section 3(a) of the Karnataka Debt Relief Act, 1980, reads :
“Every debt incurred by a debtor before the date of commencement of this Act and payable by him to his creditor on such date shall be deemed to be wholly discharged.”
6. Therefore, the relief sought to be given applies to debts which were existing on the date when the Karnataka Debt Relief Act, 1980, came into force. It does not cover debts incurred after the coming into force of the Karnataka Debt Relief Act, 1980, The date of the suit transaction is 10-12-1980, which is much after the Karnataka Debt Relief Act, 1980, came into force.
7. Hence, the trial Court erred in applying the provisions of the Karnataka Debt Relief Act, 1980, to the suit transaction. Therefore, the view taken by the Court below that the defendant is a ‘debtor’ within the meaning of the Karnataka Debt Relief Act, 1980, and that the debt is wholly discharged, cannot be sustained.
8. Hence, the revision is allowed. The judgment and decree passed by the trial Court are set aside and the suit is decreed. For the purpose of clarification, it is ordered that the plaintiff do recover Rs. 1,360/- from the defendant along with future interest on Rs. 1,000/- at 6% per annum from the date of the suit till it is recovered from the defendant.