NAURANGI LAL Vs. ADDITIONAL DISTRICT JUDGE SPECIAL JUDGE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) -In this writ petition the prayer is to quash the order dated 1.7.1982 passed by the Munsif, Hathras in Misc. Case No. 121 of 1981 rejecting the petition filed under Section 47 of the Code of Civil Procedure as well as the revisional order dated 14th January, 1983 passed by the Addl. District Judge/Special Judge, Aligarh dismissing Civil Revision No. 128 of 1982 preferred against the aforesaid order.

(2.) THE portrayal of the relevant facts are in a narrow compass. Respondent No. 2 Giriraj Kishore filed a Money Suit against the original writ- petitioner Naurangi Lal which was decreed. THE decree was put in execution. Naurangi Lal filed an objection under Section 47 of the Code of Civil Procedure asserting that he is a marginal farmer and thus according to the provisions of Act No. 4 6f 1977 the decree cannot be executed. Respondent No. 2 resisted the objection stating that the defendant had taken such a plea in his written statement which was rejected by the appellate court and thus he is not entitled to the benefit of Act No. 4 of 1977. THE objection was rejected by the executing court vide order dated 1.7.1982 observing as follows : (i) No oral evidence has been adduced by either party and (ii) In appeal against the decree it has already been adjudicated that the defendant is not a marginal farmer and, thus, there is no justification for its readjudication and the claimant cannot derive any advantage. Against this order the original writ petitioner went up in Civil Revision No. 128 of 1982 which was dismissed with costs vide impugned order dated 14.1.1983 observing as follows : (i) in the written statement, the revisionist has already taken the plea that he was a marginal farmer within the meaning of the U. P. Debt Relief Act but the appellate; court held that his principal source is grocery shop though he owned land also and (ii) In view of Section 99A of the Code of Civil Procedure, it is not possible to hold that any substantial injustice or prejudice has been caused to the revisionist.

(3.) IN my view also, there is no merit in the submissions of the learned counsel for the petitioner. On a bare perusal of the provisions of the U. P. Debt Relief Act, 1977 it is clear that this Act has been enacted for the benefit of landless agricultural labourers, small and marginal farmers, rural artisans and urban workers. The provisions of the aforementioned Section strongly relied upon by Mr. Ojha do not show that they are applicable to such persons who are having income from grocery shop.