P (PLP)

THADANI, J.‑

This is an application under section 25, Pro vincial Small Cause Courts Act, IX. of 1887, arising out of ‑an order: passed by the Judge, Small Cause Court, Nawabshah, dated 29th September 1945, in which he' dismissed the applicant's prayer for withdrawal of a sum of Rs. 153‑1‑0 which previously by his order, dated 8th June 1945 he had .ordered to be paid to the applicant decree‑holder. The applicant had instituted a suit in the Small Cause Court, Nawabshah, against the firm of Lalsingh Thakursingh for the recovery of a sum of Rs. 132‑10.‑6 as compensation for short delivery made under a contract relating to the sale of a grass chopping machine. In due course, the applicant's suit was decreed, and on the 18th May 1945, the applicant applied for execution of the decree by calling for the decretal amount from the Savings Bank Account of the opponent firm in the Nawabshah Post‑Office. The Court granted; the application, and the amount of Rs. 153‑1 0 was deposited with the Nazir of the Court, It appears that on 15th June 1945, the Small Cause Court Nawabshah received a letter, dated 6th June 1945, from the Chairman of the Debt Conciliation Board, Jullundur, in which the Chairman stated: "I have the honour to inform you that the proceedings pending in this Board under the Punjab Relief of Indebted ness Act, 4934, in pursuance of the application, dated February 24th, 1.945, about which an intimation was sent to you on 24th February 1945, have terminated.

2. The date of hearing fixed in your Court as mentioned in the earlier intimation referred to above was 14th March 1945. This letter was considered by the Court on 29th September 1945, as a result of which the applicant's application' for the withdrawal of the decretal amount paid into Court was dismissed. It is contended on behalf of the applicant judgment creditor that the Punjab Act, VII of 1934 being a Provincial Act extends only to the Punjab and cannot apply to the Province. of Sind, and that in acting upon the letter of the, Chairman 'of the. Debt Conciliation Board, Jullundur, the Small Cause Court Judge, Nawabshah, had given effect to an ex‑territorial Act in a matter pending in his Court. We do not propose to consider other grounds taken ill I he application, for instance, that the debt vas a commercial debt, and as such, not within the cognizance of the Debt Concilia tion Board of the Punjab‑ We propose to decide this application on the ground that the Punjab Debt Conciliation Act has no application to the Province of Sind ; and that the decrees passed by the Courts in Sind cannot be rendered infructuous .merely because an application has been made to the Punjab Debt Conciliation Board and the Board has acted under the provisions of the Punjab Act. The record of the case does not show where the contract of sale was made, but as delivery was made at Nawabshah the Small Cause Court Nawabshah has jurisdiction to try the suit. Whatever might have been the nature of the Debt on the passing of a decree by a Court of competent jurisdic tion, it became a decretal debt, and we cannot see how a decision of the Debt Conciliation Board of the Punjab can affect debts decreed by a Court in this Province. We have been referred to a case, Shanker v. Manek Lal A. I. R. 1940 Bom. 362 ; 191 Ind. Cas.;653 ;

1. L. R. (1940) Born. 799 ; 42 Bom. L. R. 873 ;

13. R. B. 193, in which question arose how far a Civil Court in Bombay could entertain a suit to recover a debt which bad been duly declared to be discharged by the Debt Conciliation Board of the Central Provinces. Beaumont, C. J. delivering the judgment of the Division Bench observed (p. 363) " Where questions arise as to whether the incidents of a contract should be governed by the law of one country or of another, the general rule is that all the rights and inci dents arising under the contract are governed by the proper law of the contract, and in this case the law of the contract, is the law of the place where the contract was made. One of the incidents which is governed by the law of the contract is the method of discharge of the contract. If under the proper law of the contract, such contract can be discharged by some method other than performance, such a discharge will be recognized in British India. The principle is stated in Dicey's conflict of laws,' Edn. 5, Rule 126, page 503 : ` A discharge from any debt or liability under the bankruptcy law of the country where the debt or liability is to be paid or satisfied is a discharge there from in England: Bankruptcy is, of course, one method by which a debt maybe discharged other than by performance, but the same principle applies t0 any other special method of discharge. No doubt, the Province of Bombay and the Central Provinces are both part of British India, but in my opinion, where the law of one Province of British India is distinct from the law of an other Province, the two Provinces must .be regarded for the purposes of this rule as foreign countries inter se. In my view the proper law of this contract is the law is the, law in force in the Province of Bombay, and the contract cannot be discharged by' a method recognized in the Central Provinces, but not in Bombay. I think that the view of the learned District judge was right, and a discharge of this debt under the C. P. Debt Conciliation Act is no defence to the suit filed in the Nandurbar Court. The application will be rejected with cost." In the case before us, the contractual debt bad merged into a decretal debt, the discharge or satisfaction of which would be made in a manner laid down in the Civil P. C. or any other law for the time bring in force dealing with discharge of decretal debts. There is no provision as far as we know, in any Act in force in the Province of Sind, whereby a decision of the' Punjab Debt Conciliation Board can be pleaded as a discharge of a debt, decreed by a Court in Sind. As Beaumont, C. J. has observed: " A discharge of this debt under the C. P. Debt Conciliation Act is no defence to the suit filed in the Nandurbar Court." If it was not a defence to the suit, much less can it operate as a defence to discharge a debt that has been decreed. We would accordingly set aside the order of the learned Judge whereby he refused to hand over the amount deposited in Court to the applicant until the appeal of the decree‑holder to the District‑ Court of Jullundur had been disposed of. We order the amount deposited to be paid to the judgment creditor. The application is allowed with costs. K.M.A. Application allowed.