vil Appeal No 508 of 1957
Appeal by special leave from the judgment and decree dated June 3 1955 of the Calcutta High Court in Appeal from Appellate Decree No 1090 of 1949
N C Chatterjee and D N Mukherjee for the appellant
B C Panda and P K Chaterjee for the respondent 882 1961
February 21
The Judgment of Kapur and Shah JJ was delivered by Shah J Hidayatullah J delivered a separate judgment
SHAH J To secure repayment of Rs 2500 Anath Nath Mittra hereinafter referred to as Mittra mortgaged four parcels of land to Haridas Mondalhereinafer referred to as Mondal by deed dated April 25 1930
Mondal filed suit No 18 of 1937 on June 11 1937 for enforcement of the mortgage in the Court of the 2nd Subordinate Judge Midnapore and obtained a preliminary mortgage decree for Rs 5000and interest and costs
This decree was made absolute and in execution of the decree the mortgaged property was sold for Rs 4160 and an amount of Rs 217666 out of the decretal amount remained due and payable under the mortgage decree
Out of the four parcels of land sold three were purchased by Mondal and the remaining was purchased by Mittra s wife
Mondal then applied for a personal decree under 0 34 r 6 of the Civil Procedure Code and obtained on September 7 1940 a decree for payment of Rs 2338150 against Mittra
Mondal then applied for executing the personal decree by Misc
Execution Cage No 1 1 of 1941
In the meanwhile the Bengal Legislature enacted the Bengal Money lenders Act 1940 which enabled the courts in certain circumstances to reopen decrees already passed
Availing himself of this Act Mittra filed a suit under section 36 of the Bengal Money lenders Act for an order reopening the personal decree
By order dated August 16 1941 the Subordinate Judge Midnapore decreed the suit and directed that a new decree for Rs 1431 15 0 be drawn up and that the amount due under the personal decree be paid in three annual instalments
Against this decree an appeal was preferred to the District Court Midnapore
The District Judge dismissed the appeal and allowed the cross objections filed by Mondal
In Second Appeal No 1442 of 1942 the High Court of Judicature at Calcutta set aside the decree of the District Judge and restored the decree of the Subordinate Judge 2nd Court Midnapore
Mittra did not pay the amount as directed under the 883 new decree and Mondal applied for executing the decree
Mittra then filed another suit under section 36 of the Bengal Money lenders Act in the 2nd Court of the Subordinate Judge Midnapore for reopening the decrees preliminary and final passed in the mortgage suit
The Subordinate Judge dismissed this suit as it was in his view barred as res judicata
In appeal to the District Court the decree was confirmed
But the High Court in Second Appeal ordered that the preliminary and final decrees be reopened and the case be remanded to the trial court for passing a fresh preliminary decree
Against the said decree of the High Court this appeal is filed with special leave
Section 30 of the Bengal Money lenders Act 1940 provides in so far as it is material that notwithstanding anything contained in any law for the time being in force or in any agreement no borrower shall be liable to pay after the commencement of the Act a sum in respect of principal and interest which together with any amount already paid or included in any decree in respect of a loan exceeds twice the principal of the original loan and that the borrower shall not be liable to pay interest at rate per annum in cases of secured loans exceeding 8 per cent
simple
By section 36 the liability on loans secured or otherwise which contravenes the provisions of section 30 is liable to be reopened
It is provided by subs
1 of s36 in so far as it is material that notwithstanding anything contained in any law for the time being in force if in any suit brought by a borrower for relief under this section whether heard ex parte or otherwise the court has reason to believe that the exercise of one or more of the powers under the section will give relief to the borrower it shall exercise all or any of the powers specified therein as may be considered appropriate
The court is invested with the power of reopening transactions including taking of accounts between the parties of releasing the borrower of all liability in excess of the limits specified in cls
1 and 2 of section 30 and offsetting aside either wholly or in part or of revising or altering any security given or agreement made in respect of any loan
Exercise of these powers 884 is subject to the provisos which are not material for the purposes of this appeal
By sub section
2 the court reopening a decree is prohibited from doing anything which affects the rights acquired bona fide by any person other than the decree holder in consequence of the execution of the reopened decree but is enjoined to order the restoration to the judgment debtor of such property if any of the judgment debtor acquired by the decree holder in consequence of the execution of the reopened decree as may be in the possession of the decree holder on the date on which the decree was reopened and also to order the judgment debtor to pay to the decree holder in such number of instalments as it may think fit the whole amount of the new decree passed under cl
The court is further enjoined to direct that in default of payment of any instalments the decree holder shall be put into possession of the property which has been restored to the judgment debtor and that the amount for which the decree holder purchased such property in execution of the reopened decree shall be set off against so much of the amount of the new decree as remained unsatisfied
Sub section 6 provides that notwithstanding any
thing contained in any law for the time being in force the court which in a suit to which the Act applies passed a decree which was not fully satisfied by the first day of January 1939 may exercise the powers conferred by sub sections
1 and 2 in any proceeding in execution of such decree
Section 36 sub section
1 contemplates the institution of a suit by a borrower for relief under that section and the court is thereby invested with the power of reopening decrees already passed
Mittra in the year 1941 filed the suit under section 36 of the Act for reopening the personal decree passed under 0 34 r 6 of the Civil Procedure Code
In Schedule  A  to the plaint he set out the principal amount due under the mortgage
the interest at the rate of 8 due thereon from the date of the mortgage till the date of the suit costs of the suit and after giving credit for the price realised by sale of the properties he submitted that Mondal was entitled to 885 recover only Rs 66 13 2 and that Mondal should be declared entitled to that amount in twenty annual instalments
By a suit under section 36 Mittra undoubtedly was entitled to reopen the preliminary decree decree absolute for sale and also the personal decree  but in the first suit he gave up his right to reopen the preliminary decree and the decree absolute for sale and was content to obtain an order that the personal decree alone be reopened
In the execution under the mortgage decree one parcel of land was purchased by Mittra s wife and it is presumably on account of this circumstance that Mittra was unwilling to have the preliminary decree reopened
The District Judge Midnapore who heard the appeal against the order passed by the 2nd Court of the Subordinate Judge in the first suit under section 36 of the Act observed  It is admitted before me by the learned pleader for the appellant that the reopening of the entire transaction will not be to the benefit of the appellant and the latter therefore does not want this to be done
The only relief he claims is that the new decree passed by the learned Subordinate Judge for Rs 1431 15 0 shall be reduced to Rs 66 13 2 as mentioned in his application under section 36 of the Act
 In the first suit under section 36 filed by Mittra the claim to reopen the preliminary decree and the decree absolute was deliberately abandoned and he obtained relief expressly on the footing that he did not desire that those decrees should be reopened
Is it thereafter open to Mittra to file another suit for obtaining relief under section 36 by reopening the preliminary decree and the decree absolute  In our judgment section 36 contemPlates filing of one suit and not successive suits for reopening transactions including decrees and obtaining relief under the Act
If in a suit filed for that purpose a borrower does not obtain relief which he has asked for or abandons his right to relief in our judgment it will not thereafter be open to him to institute a second suit for relief which could have been but was not claimed in the earlier suit
The plea that in the previous suit it was not open to Mittra to make a claim for reopening the 886 preliminary decree and the decree absolute is without substance
By sub section
6 of section 36 the right to grant relief in proceedings in execution of a decree already passed but which is not satisfied is vested in
the court passing the decree and the first suit under section 36 was filed in the court which had originally passed the mortgage decree
The claim to reopen the decrees preliminary and final was abandoned not because the court was incompetent to grant relief but because Mittra did not at that stage desire to reopen those decrees
We are unable to agree with the High Court that to a suit under section 36 of the Act the rule contained in 0 2 r 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure does not apply
We are also of the view that the right to claim relief which could have been but has not been asked for in the previous suit must be regarded as res judicata
In that view of the case this appeal will be allowed and Mittra s suit No 105 of 1947 dismissed with costs throughout
HIDAYATULLAH J I have had the advantage of reading the judgment just delivered by my brother Shah J but I regret my inability to agree that the judgment under appeal be reversed
The appellant a money lender had advanced a sum of Rs 2500 to the respondent on a simple mortgage of four properties
He filed a suit which was decreed on November 13 1937 when a preliminary decree for Rs 5000 plus costs was passed against the respondent
This decree was made final on February 25 1938
On May 17 1939 the four properties were sold for Rs 4160  and the balance then remaining due was Rs 2176 
Three of the properties were purchased by the appellant decree holder and the fourth by the wife of the mortgagor
On September 7 1940 a personal decree for Rs 2338 15 3 was passed against the respondent
In 1941 execution of that decree was taken out
In the meantime the Bengal Money lenders Act had come into force on August 1 1940
The respondent there
upon made an application under section 36 of the Bengal Money lenders Act for reopening the decree
The 887 respondent did not say which decree he wanted reopened but with his application he gave a statement of account of the entire amount as reduced under the Bengal Money lenders Act and by the amount realised A by sale of the four properties and asked that a decree for the balance Rs 66 13 2 should be passed against him
The application was partly allowed and afresh decree for Rs 1431 15 0 was passed
If the earlier decrees had been reopened the amount due would have been Rs 5591 15 0 but the Subordinate Judge said   As Rs 4160 was paid I find no necessity of cancelling the sale and ordering restitution but for the balance of Rs 1431 15 0 a new decree be drawn up The respondent appealed and the appellant cross objected
The District Judge dismissed the appeal allowed the cross objection and dismissed the application
On appeal to the High Court by the present respondent R C Mitter J allowed the appeal
He held that the personal decree was liable to be reopened and restored the decree for Rs 1431 15 0 passed by the Subordinate Judge
The respondent who was directed to pay the amount by instalments under the orders of Mitter J made default in payment and a money execution case was started against him
He thereupon brought a suit under section 36 of the Bengal Money lenders Act for reopening the preliminary final and personal decrees
This suit was dismissed as barred by constructive res judicata and the principle of 0 2 r 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure by the Subordinate Judge and the appeal to the District Judge also failed
On further appeal to the High Court K C Das Gupta J as he then was and Guha J allowed the appeal
The learned Judges held that 0 2 r 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure did not apply to the suit because it refers to a previous suit and not to an application filed in execution for relief They also pointed out that under the Bengal Money lenders Act the duty was laid upon the Court to reopen any decree if it was likely to give relief to the borrower and that the relief did not 888 depend upon the desire or claim of the borrower
They further pointed out that even Mitter J was of the opinion that the relief to be given was incumbent upon the Court and independent of the wishes of the borrower
In the appeal before us filed with special leave Mr N C Chatterjee contended that the suit was barred by res judicata waiver and estoppel and that the Divisional Bench of the High Court was in error in ordering the reopening of the three decrees when the respondent himself had not asked on the earlier occasion that they be reopened
The scheme of the Bengal Money lenders Act is as follows The Act though passed to control moneylenders and to regulate and control money lending gave relief to borrowers in many ways
One such way was to put the limit of what is popularly known as Damdupat on interest and another was to limit the rate of interest to 8 per cent
simple in the case of secured loans
By section 36 transactions which contravened these provisions were required to be reopened
This reopen ing was not limited to transactions but decrees also were required to be reopened unless fully satisfied by the first day of January 1939
The section gave vast powers to Courts reopening decrees
Sub section 2 of section 36 provided  2 If in exercise of the powers conferred by sub section 1 the Court reopens a decree the Court a shall after affording the parties an opportunity of being heard pass a new decree in accordance with the provisions of this Act and may award to the decree holder such costs in respect of the re
opened decree as it thinks fit b shall not do anything which affects any right acquired bona fide by any person other than the decree holder in consequence of the execution of the reopened decree c shall order the restoration to the judgment debtor of such property if any of the judgmentdebtor acquired by the decree holder in consequence of the execution of the reopened decree as may be in 889 the possession of the decree holder on the date on which the decree was reopened d shall order the judgment debtor to pay to the decree holder in such number of instalments as it A may think fit the whole amount of the new decree passed under clause a and e shall direct that in default of the payment of any instalment ordered under clause d the decree holder shall be put into possession of the property referred to in clause c and that the amount for which the decree holder purchased such property in execution of the reopened decree shall be set off against so much of the amount of the new decree as remains unsatisfied
 The stages at which decrees could be reopened were laid down by sub sections
1 and 6 of section 36
Sub section 1 provided   Notwithstanding anything contained in any law for the time being in force if in any suit to which this Act applies or in any suit brought by a borrower for relief under this section whether heard ex parte or otherwise the Court has reason to believe that the exercise of one or more of the powers under this section will give relief to the borrower it shall exercise all or any of the following powers as it may consider appropriate  Sub section 6 provided  Notwithstanding anything contained in any law for the time being in force a the Court which in a suit to which this Act applies passed a decree which was not fully satisfied by the first day of January 1939 may exercise the powers conferred by sub sections 1 and 2 i in any proceedings in execution of such decree or ii on an application for review of such decree made within one year of the date of commencement of this Act and the provisions of rules 2 and 5 of Order XLVII of the First Schedule to the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 shall not apply to any such application 890 b any Court before which an appeal is pending in respect of a decree referred to in clause a may either itself exercise the like powers as may be exercised under sub sections 1 and 2 or refer the case to the Court which passed the decree directing such Court to exercise such powers and such Court shall after exercise thereof return the record with the additional evidence if any taken by it and its findings and the reasons therefore to the Appellate Court and thereupon the provisions of rule 26 of Order XLI of the First Schedule to the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 shall apply
 The words suit to which this Act applies were defined to mean  2 22 any suit or proceeding instituted or filed on or after the 1st day of January 1939 or pending on that date and includes a proceeding in execution a
for the recovery of a loan advanced before or after the commencement of this Act b for the enforcement of any agreement entered into before or after the commencement of this Act whether by way of settlement of account or otherwise or of any security so taken in respect of any loan advanced whether before or after the commencement of this Act or c for the redemption of any security given before or after the commencement of this Act in respect of any loan advanced whether before or after the commencement of this Act
 By section 221  suit  included an appeal
The definition was still further widened for purposes of section 36 vide sub section
3 but nothing turns on it
The effect of these provisions may be summed up The reopening of transactions and decrees could be achieved ain any suit to which the Act applied b in a suit brought by the borrower for relief under section 36 c in any proceeding in execution of decrees d by an application for review of a decree made within one year of the date of commencement of the Act and 891 e by appellate Courts at all the above stages
Once the Court was moved the action of the Court was dictated by the Act and the Court was compelled by the Act to give full relief
The Court in this case was required by law to reopen all the decrees passed against the respondent
Indeed R C Mitter J quite correctly pointed out  In this case the judgment debtor was entitled to have all the decrees namely the preliminary final and the personal decrees reopened
He should not have been refused relief simply because he had asked for the reopening of the personal decree only if there had been a contravention of the provisions of section 30 of the Bengal Money lenders Act
 The learned Judge however declined to remand the case for the application of the Act or even to apply it himself because he felt that what was asked for by the respondent should atleast have been granted and he granted only that relief
The law however gave no such option
It was mandatory and laid a duty upon the Court
The respondent then filed a suit and asked for all the reliefs which the Court had to award and there can be no doubt that unless the suit be incompetent the Act must be applied even now because the volition of the borrower is entirely out of place in the application of the Act
The respondent no doubt when he applied on the previous occasion asked that the Act be applied only so far as benefited him but his wishes were irrelevant and the Act had to be applied as it stood
Every one who has dealt with this case has felt this to be the true position in law
Thus the question is whether the respondent was precluded from bringing the suit
The suit could be barred under section 11 or 0 2 r 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure or by the application of the principle of constructive res judicata or because of waiver estoppel or the equitable principle of approbation and reprobation
The opening words of Sub section
1 and again of subs
6 of section 36 are  Notwithstanding anything contained in any law for the time being in force 892 and they are apt to put out of consideration both section 11 and O 2 r 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure
Waiver and the equitable doctrine of approbation and reprobation can apply only if a right were give up
They can have no application where the question is not so much of a right of a party as of the duty of a Court under the Act
The Court was moved and had to do its duty
If it can be moved a second time by another proceeding neither those principles nor the principle of constructive res judicata can apply
The remedies which are enjoined by the Act are not exclusive of one another either expressly or by necessary intendment
As the law stands the Court could take action to enforce it at almost any stage of the proceedings between the parties commenced by the creditor and in addition in proceedings or a suit commenced by the borrower
The intention of the law is clear and manifest that borrowers must be protected
Indeed in Jadunath Roy vs Kshitish Chandra Achariya Choudhury 1 the Judicial Committee held that the preliminary the final and the personal decrees in a suit to enforce a simple mortgage were all connected and were in effect one decree only and there could be no question of reopening one decree and not the others
And in Joy Chand Lal Babu vs Kamalaksha Choudhury 2 a consent decree in a mortgage suit which combined the preliminary the final and the personal decrees into one decree was held to be properly reopened
The decrees passed against the respondent were required by law to be reopened and no provision of the Code of Civil Procedure or of equity could bar the suit
The first was excluded expressly and equity was hardly applicable in view of the law on the subject
Indeed by the suit even thedecree of Mitter J could be reopened if it did not comply
with the law
In my opinion the order of the Divisional Bench of the Calcutta High Court with respect is correct and to hold otherwise is to decline to give effect to the protection which the Act has sedulously erected in 1 1949 LR 76 IA 179 2 1949 LR 76 IA 131 893 favour of borrowers and against rapacious moneylenders
I find myself in such complete agreement with the judgment impugned that I do not find it necessary to cover the same ground
I would therefore dismiss the appeal with Costs
BY COURT
In view of the majority judgment of the Court this appeal will be allowed and Mittra s Suit No 105 of 1947 dismissed with costs throughout


Summary:
The appellant obtained a preliminary and then a final mort gage decree against the respondent and thereafter a personal decree for the debt remaining due to him after sale of the property mortgaged
The appellant applied for execution of the personal decree and thereupon the respondent sued for relief under section 36 of the Bengal Money lenders Act 1940 by reopening the personal decree
In the suit relief for reopening the preliminary decree and final decree was not claimed
The personal decree was reopened in that suit and an instalment decree for a smaller amount passed instead which was ultimately upheld by the High Court
The respondent failed to pay the instalments and the appellant applied for executing the decree
The respondent then filed another suit under section 36 of the Act for reopening the preliminary and final decrees
The Subordinate judge dismissed the suit holding that it wag barred as res judicata and the District judge on appeal affirmed that decision
But the 881 High Court in second appeal reversed those decisions and directed the preliminary and the final decrees be reopened and remanded the case to the trial court for passing a fresh preliminary decree
Hence this appeal with special leave
Held per Kapur and Shah JJ that section 36 of the Bengal Money lenders Act 1940 contemplated the filing of one and not successive suits for the reopening of transactions including decrees and obtaining relief under the Act
If in such a suit the borrower failed to seek the entire relief he was entitled to and abandoned his right to a part of the relief he would be precluded from seeking that relief in another suit
The principle underlying r 2 of 0 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure as also the principle of res judicata applied to a suit under section 36 of the Act
Per Hidayatullah J When the respondent moved the executing court under section 36 of the Act he had not filed a suit but only an application
It was the duty of the court thereunder to give him full relief although he might not have asked for it
If the court failed in its duty and he filed a suit no question of waiver or constructive res judicata could at all arise
This was made clear by the non obstante words of sub sections
1 and 6 Of section 36 and the question that arose under the section was not s much of the right of a party as of the duty of the court to give entire relief under the Act
The remedies enjoined by the Act were not exclusive of one another either expressly or by necessary intendment and were intended to give the widest possible relief to the borrowers
jadhunath Roy vs Kshitish Chandra Achariya Choudhury 1949 LR 76 IA I79 and joy Chand Lal Babu vs Kamalaksha Choudhury 1949 LR 76 IA 131 referred to
Since the Act required that the decrees passed against the respondent had to be reopened no provision of the Code of Civil Procedure or of equity could bar the suit the former being expressly excluded and the latter made inapplicable by the substantive provisions of the Act