-STATEMENT OF JURISDICTION-

The counsels on behalf of the Respondent humbly submit before the jurisdiction of District
Court, Patna in response to the suit filed by plaintiff. The jurisdiction is of the Civil Courts
Act, 1977.
The Respondent humbly submits to the jurisdiction of this Hon’ble Court.
 -STATEMENT OF FACTS-
BACKGROUND
1. Pataliputra Peasants Cooperative Society (“Society”) was registered on 15th August,
1948, to mark the commemoration of an independent India true to its agrarian roots.
The Society consisted of farmers from the Gangetic plains in Bihar who were engaged
in cultivation of paddy. The objective was to prioritize farmers’ interests in law and
policy, and make sure that the ‘rice basket’ of the eastern region remain unscathed
during natural calamities.

2. In the monsoon of 2022, Bihar experienced severe floods which led to submergence
of more than 50,000 hectares of land where paddy was being cultivated. The
Department of Agriculture, Bihar, estimated that the natural calamity had caused a
loss in the stock of paddy worth Rs. 25 crores, however the department was working
on finalizing this estimate, and contemplating whether a similar kind of loss had been
occasioned to other cereals grown in the region as well.

3. The state legislature enacted Bihar (Flood Emergency) Act, 2023, where all loans
taken in cultivation of the paddy by the farmers were waived subject to their financial
condition. The relevant waiver rule under Section 6 of the Act is reproduced below:
“…The Act hereby waives all existing primary loan obligations of cultivators for amounts
borrowed exclusively for the production of paddy. The waiver can only be availed by farmers
whose annual income falls below the ‘below poverty line’ threshold set by the state
government. Whether the waiver can be extended to the remaining classes of farmers will be
notified from time to time through regulations promulgated under the Act.”
The Society challenged this provision under a Writ Petition before the Patna High Court on
the ground of arbitrary discrimination between different classes of farmers. As on date, the
proceedings are in pendency before the Patna High Court.

4. Pritam Singh, a farmer, and a member of the Society, had taken a loan predominantly
for cultivating paddy, and a minor portion for growing wheat and bajra, from State
Bank of India (“SBI”). He had also signed the petition before the High Court as he
was interested in claiming the waiver for losses suffered in cultivation of wheat and
bajra as well. Mr. Singh happened to be above the BPL threshold in terms of his
annual income. The loan had been secured through a guarantee provided by Farmers’
Friend (“FF”), an NGO in Patna.

5. . When Mr. Singh suffered huge losses in his crop production and could not repay the
loan, SBI approached FF for repayment. But FF sought a coextensive discharge from
repayment under Section 128 as Mr. Singh had a legitimate expectation of being
discharged from his obligation through operation of law. SBI filed a suit against FF
before District Court, Patna, claiming specific performance. FF contended that till the
proceedings before the High Court were pending, and further notifications are not
released pursuant to Section 6 of the Act, the civil suit brought by SBI must be stayed.
 -SUMMARY OF ISSUES-
ISSUE 1: Whether or not FF is coextensively discharged from repayment under
Section 128 of The Indian Contract Act, 1872?

ISSUE 2: Whether or not FF will be liable for specific performance?

 -SUMMARY OF ARGUMENTS-

ISSUE 1: WHETHER OR NOT FF IS COEXTENSIVELY DISCHARGED

FROM REPAYMENT UNDER SECTION 128 OF THE INDIAN CONTRACT
ACT, 1872?

Under the current issue that is presented before the Hon’ble court FF is coextensively
discharged from repayment under Section 128 of The Indian Contract Act, 1872 as it
clearly states that “ the liability of the surety is co-extensive with that of the principle
debtor, unless it is otherwise provided by the contract.”
 PRAYER
For the above-mentioned reasons, the RESPONDENT respectfully requests that this
Court DECLARE:

That, FF is coextensively discharged from his liability of repayment under sec 128 of
Indian Contract Act, 1870.

That, FF isn’t liable for any specific performance.

And provide any other order and/or declaration that the learned court may deem fit in
light of justice, equity and good conscience. And pass the aforementioned orders or
direction in favor of the RESPONDENT which the court deems fit and appropriate.
For this act of kindness, the RESPONDENT will always remain obliged.

Date: 18/11/2022
Place: District Court, Patna Counsel on behalf of the RESPONDENT.