TADVI BHIKHABHAI GORDHANBHAI Vs. DESAI MOHANLAL RANCHHODDAS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Respondent No. 1 had filed a suit against the petitioners jointly for recovery of a sum due from the petitioners in the Court of 9th Jt. Civil Judge (J.D.), Vadodara which was registered as Reg. Civil Suit No. 1364 of 1980.

(2.) The petitioner No. 1 moved an application stating that defendant No. 2 (petitioner No. 2 in this petition) has approached the Debt Settlement Officer under the Gujarat Rural Debtors' Relief Act, 1976 and the Debt Settlement Officer passed the order in favour of defendant No. 2 on 1-9-1982 and, therefore, the suit may be dismissed having abated.

(3.) The Court by its order dated 10-1-1983 rejected that application and ordered the suit to proceed further on mertis since Debt Settlement Officer rejected application of defendant No. 1 on 5-1-1981 while application of defendant No. 2 relating to the amount of Rs. 2,800.00 was allowed on 1-9-1982 and said debt was discharged. As the application of defendant No. 1 under the Act of 1976 was rejected by Debt Settlement Officer himself, no occasion arose for the Court to entertain his application for dismissing the suit as having been abated. In this connection, It may be appropriate to refer to the provisions of Sec. 11(2) Proviso of the Act which clearly postulates that whereas the suit is against the debtor and other person is not a debtor, the bar against the civil proceedings in a Civil Court does not apply to the continuance of such suit or application or other proceedings in so far as it relates to such other person. The term "debtor" in the context of Sec. 11 of the Act means a debtor whose debt falls within the category covered by the Act and not any other debtor. A person who is not covered by the Act, debt due from him also does not come within the purview of "debt" covered under the Act. Apparently when the application of defendant-petitioner No. 1 was rejected by the Debt Settlement Officer, he was not a debtor within the meaning of the Act nor debt owed by him to the plaintiff can be considered to be a debt to be dealt with by the Debt Settlement Officer under the Act. Therefore, so far as defendant No. 1 is concerned, there is no error in exercise of the jurisdiction for continuing with the suit by the learned Civil Judge.