9911796707
TMI Blog1957 (7) TMI 47X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... f 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 since Section 3 of the Madras Indebte ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d 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 case was really one governing the proced ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... sel 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 Court shall, if the debtor is an agriculturist, pa ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 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). This contention again I am unable to accept. Section 4(1) a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
