ORDER
Pratap Singh, J.
1. These civil revision petitions are filed against the orders passed in four un-numbered money suits filed before the District Munsif, Tiruvannamalai.
2. Short facts are: Regarding C.R.P. No. 1543 of 1988, the suit was filed on 11.12.1981 on the foot of two pronotes dated 30.7.1974 and 20.6.1976 out of which endorsement of payment of Rs. 120 was made in the first pronote on 20.6.1976 According to the plaintiff, the defendant is the debtor and is entitled to the benefit of the Debt Relief Act and so the period from 16.1.1975 to 12.6.1979 is to be excluded and so the suit filed on 11.12.1981 is in time. The court below had held that inasmuch as the endorsement in the first pronote was dated 20.6.1976, the period of limitation is to be computed from 20.6.1976. It has further held that the embargo for filing of the suits by virtue of the Debt Relief Act came to end by 15.7.1978 and 3 years therefrom would come to 15.7.1981 and since the suit was filed on 11.12.1981. It was filed beyond the period of limitation and so it is barred by time and has rejected the plaint.
3. Regarding C.R.P. No. 1545 of 88 the suit was filed on 19.12.1981 on the foot of two pronotes dated 24.8.1974 and 26.9.1974 respectively. In both the pronotes, endorsement of payment of Rs. 150 and Rs. 75 respectively were made on 20.6.1976. According to the plaintiff during the period from 16.1.1975 to 12.6.1979 suits could not be filed because of the Debt Relief Act. Since the defendant is a debtor and so the suit was filed on 19.12.1981, which is within 3 years from 12.6.1979 and hence it is in time. After hearing the learned Counsel for the plaintiff, the court below has held that the period of stay was extended only up to 15.7.1978 and this suit having been filed beyond the period of 3 years, i.e. after 15.7.1978 is barred by time and rejected the plaint and aggrieved by the same. C.R.P. No. 1545 of 1988 is filed.
4. Regarding C.R.P. No. 1546 of 1988, the suit was filed on 24.12.1981 on the foot of a pronote dated 6.7.1975. There was an endorsement of payment of Rs. 5 on 5.7.1978. According to the plaintiff, during the period from 16.1.1975 to 12.6.1979 suits could not be filed because of the operation of the Debt Relief Act and since the defendant was an agriculturist and this suit filed within 3 years from 12.6.1979 is within time. After hearing the learned Counsel for the plaintiff, the court below had held that the period of stay came to an end by 15.7.1978 and since the suit was filed after the expiry of 3 years from 15.7.1978, it is barred by time and holding so has rejected the plaint. Aggrieved by the said order C.R.P. No. 1546 of 88 is filed.
5. Regarding C.R.P. No. 1547 of 1988, the suit was filed on 11.12.1981 on the foot of a pronote dated 20.6.1976. According to the plaintiff, during the period from 16.1.1975 to 12.6.1979 the suit could not be filed because of the operation of the Debt Relief Acts since the defendant is a debtor and since the suit is filed within 3 years from 12.6.1979 it is in time. After hearing the learned Counsel for the plaintiff, the court below has held that the stay of the suit under the Debt Relief Acts, was only up to 15.7.1978 and since the suit was filed beyond 3 years from 15.7.1978, it is barred by time and has rejected the plaint. Aggrieved by the same, the C.R.P. No. 1547 of 1988 is filed.
6. Mr. M.V. Chandran, the learned Counsel appearing for the revision petitioner, would submit that the court below has failed to apply Section 6 of Tamil Nadu Act 39 of 1979 which excluded the period from 15.1.1976 to 13.6.1979 and that if the said provision is applied, all the suits are within time. Per contra, Miss Sumathi, learned Counsel appearing for the respondents, would submit that Section 6 of Tamil Nadu Act 39 of 1979 has not yet come into force and so, it cannot be pressed into service. She has further submitted that Act 13 of 1980 is not applicable to this case. It is her further submission that in all the plaints, it is stated that the annual income of the defendant is more than the ceiling limit given under the Debt Relief Act and so the defendant in each of the cases is not entitled to the benefit of the said Act. With regard to the last submission Mr. M.V. Chandran would submit that the annual income of the defendants, given in these plaints, are only in respect of the year 1979 and that is not for the material year, the income of which is to be considered for holding whether a defendant is a debtor or otherwise.
7. I have carefully considered the submissions made by the learned Counsels. To consider the rival submissions I have to consider first the submission made by Miss Sumathi that Section 6 of Act 39 of 1979 has not come into force. Act XXXIX of 1979 had received the assent of the President on 11.6.1979 and it was published in the Tamil Nadu Government Gazette, Extraordinary to Part IV, Section 2, dated 13.6.1979 at pages 177-180. Section 2 reads as follows:
Section 2: Sections 2, 3 and 4 shall be deemed to have come into force on the 29th July, 1976.
There are Amendments to the said sections in the main Act. Section 6 reads as follows:
Section 6: Exclusion of time for limitation and dissolution of stay of proceedings in respect of certain suits and applications: (1) Where, on or after the 15th day of January, 1976, but before the date of the publication of this Act in the Tamil Nadu Gazette, any suit for the recovery of amount towards any debt, as is referred to in Sub-Section (1) of Section 5 could have been instituted on any application for the execution of a decree passed in any such suit or the making of the application was barred by Section 3 of the Tamil Nadu Indebted Agriculturists (Temporary Relief) Act, 1976 (President’s Act XV of 1976) or Section 4 of the Tamil Nadu Indebted Persons (Temporary Relief) Act, 1976 (President’s Act XVI of 1976) as the case may be, then in computing the period of limitation, or limit of time prescribed for such suit or application, the period commencing on and from the 15th day of January, 1976 and ending with the date of the publication of this Act in the Tamil Nadu Government Gazette shall be excluded.
The date of publication of this Act in the Tamil Nadu Government Gazette was 13.6.1979.
8. Miss Sumathi would submit that Section 6 does not specify the date on which it should come into force, whereas Section 1 states that Sections 2, 3 and 4 shall be deemed to have come into force on 29.7.1976 and so, Section 6 has not yet come into force. Per contra Mr. M.V. Chandran would submit that so far as Section 1 is concerned, it relates to certain amendments to Sections 2, 3 and 4 of the main Act and it had to be given effect to retrospectively namely, from 29.7.1976 and so, it has been made specific. He would further submit that if no date is specified in coming into effect of all sections of the Act, the date of publication of the Act in the Government Gazette should be taken as the date of coming into effect. In Ramjilal v. Piparia Municipality A.I.R. 1959 M.P. 82, in para. 8 a Full Bench of Madhya Pradesh High Court had held as follows:
As we read Section 67(7) of the Act, we are of opinion that it only gives discretion to the provincial Government, after the proposal for taxation has been sanctioned by it under Sub-Section (5) to decide whether or not to direct its imposition. If it decides that it should be imposed, it is required to issue a notification directing the imposition of the tax. The provincial Government may also decide, while sanctioning the proposal of taxation, that the imposition of the tax shall not be forthwith. In that case, it would be required to determine the date from which it shall come into effect. The latter part of Section 67(7) contemplates this contingency and provides that where such a date is specified in the notification, the tax shall be effective only from that date. No obligation, however, can attach to the provincial Government to postpone the imposition of the tax. Accordingly, no such limitation can, in the absence of any express provision to that effect, be read in Section 67(7). Therefore, where no date is specified, it shall be presumed that the imposition of the tax has not been postponed. As a consequence, the tax shall take effect from the date on which notification directing its imposition has been published.
The ratio of this ruling applies to these cases. I am clear that when no date is specified, the date, on which publication of the Notification was made in the Government Gazette, should be taken as the date on which the Act comes into force. Taking that view of the matter, I am unable to accept the submission made by Miss Sumathi the learned Counsel for the respondent.
9. The next question that falls for consideration is whether Section 6 of Act 39 of 1979 is applicable to the facts of this case. Section 6 extracted supra, would show that it is applicable in the following cases:
(i) Where Section 5(1) of Act XV of 1976 is applicable.
(ii) Where Section 4 of Tamil Nadu Act XVI of 1976 is applicable.
10 Section 5(1) of the Tamil Nadu Act XV of 1976 and Section 4 of Tamil Nadu Act XVI of 1976 also need extraction.
Section 5(1) of Act XV of 1976 is as follows:
5. Exclusion of time for limitation: In computing the period of limitation or limit of time prescribed for a suit for the recovery of a debt or an application for the execution of a decree passed in such a suit, the time during which the institution of the suit or the making of application was barred by Section 3 or during which the plaintiff or his predecessor in title, believing in good faith that Section 3 applied to such suit or such application refrained from instituting the suit or making the application, shall be excluded.
Section 4 of the Act XVI of 1976 is as follows:
4. Bar of suits and applications: No suit for the recovery of a debt shall be instituted, and no application for the execution of a decree for payment of money passed in a suit for the recovery of a. debt shall be made, against any indebted person in any civil or revenue court on and from the date of commencement of this Act and before the expiry of one year from the said date.
Act XV of 1976 covers indebted agriculturists coming within the purview of that Act and Act XVI of 1976 covers indebted persons coming within the purview of the said Act. According to the plaints in these cases, the defendant is a person entitled to the benefits of the Debt Relief Acts. Though the Act as such has not been specifically stated in these plaints, it is stated positively that the defendant is entitled to the benefit of the Debt Relief Act. So, according to the plaints, the defendant is a person coming either under Section 5(1) of the Act XV of 1976 or under Section 4 of the Act XVI of 1976. In either case, on the plain language of Section 6 of the Act 39 of 1979, the said section is applicable. If Section 6 is applied, then the period of limitation would extend upto 13.6.1979. On the allegations made in the plaint and on the plain language of Section 6, I am unable to accept the submissions made by Miss Sumathi that this Act is not applicable to the facts of this case.
11. If Section 6 of Act 39 of 1979 is applied, then all the suits are filed in time. Of course, it is left to the defendant to contest the claim of the plaintiff that the defendants in these cases are debtors. That is the matter which can be gone into only at the time of trial. While taking the plaints to file, the court is confined to the allegations made in the plaints. It is left to the defendants, during the course of trial, to contest the claim of the plaintiffs that they are debtors under the Debt Relief Act and so the plaint could not be filed during the period up to 13.6.1979 and so the suit is now filed.
12. The next submission made by Miss Sumathi is that in nowhere of the plaint, it is stated that the defendant is getting income in 1979 of the amount which is more than the ceiling amount fixed for claiming the benefit of this Act. Mr. M.V. Chandran pointed out that it relates to the period 1979 and that is not the material period to be considered.
13. Miss Sumathi would refer to Sri Agastheeswaraswami Devasthanam v. Rajagopal Konar (1992)1 L.W. 77. It has considered the implication of Section 7(1) (a) and Section 7(2)(i) of Tamil Nadu Act 40 of 1978. Section 6 of Act 39 of 1979 did not come up for consideration in those rulings.
14. In view of my acceptance of the submissions of Mr. M.V. Chandran that Section 6 of the Act 39 of 1979 is applicable to these cases, the suits are filed in time and consequently the orders of the court below rejecting them are not correct and the same is liable to be set aside. Consequently, all the civil revision petitions are allowed, setting aside the orders of the court below.