DEENA NATH SINGH Vs. ADDITIONAL DISTRICT JUDGE BALLIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner has filed the present writ petition for the quashing of the order dated 10.2.1987 passed by the 1st Addl. District Judge, Ballia in Revision No. 55 of 1984 dismissing the revision as well as the order dated 21.1.1984 passed by respondent No. 2 dismissing petitioner's objections filed under Section 47, CPC.

(2.) Respondent No.3 is the decree-holder. On the basis of compromise, a money decree was passed in his favour, which was put in execution in Case No. 50 of 1981. The present petitioner filed objections under Section 47, CPC alleging that the judgment-debtor Ajit Narain, father of the objector had with him less than one hectare of land, whose main source .of livelihood was agriculture and his annual household income did not exceed Rs. 2,400/- and the annual household income of this heirs also did not exceed Rs. 2,400/-. In short the petitioner's claim is that the judg- ment-debtor was a "marginal farmer" within the meaning of Section 2(9) of the U.P. Debt Relief Act, 1977, hereinafter referred to as the Act and so the decree in question was unexecutable. The Executing Court rejected the said objection and the revision filed by the petitioner, has also been dismissed. Mr. K.N. Rai appeared for the petitioner and Mr. R.N. Singh appeared on behalf of respondent No. 3. Standing Counsel is present for respondent Nos. 1 and 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner argued before this court that the Executing court as well as the, Revisional court have committed a gross error of law in not -making enquiry into the main question whether or not the petitioner was entitled to claim the benefit of the provisions of the Act on the basis of .his being a "marginal farmer". It is further urged that the petitioner has alternatively claimed that if he could not be treated as "marginal farmer", he was a 'small farmer' within the meaning of Sub-section (11) of Section 2 of the Act and again on this questiort neither any enquiry has been made by both the courts below nor any finding has been recorded and therefore, according to petitioner's counsel both the orders are not sustainable in law.

(3.) Section 4 of the Act makes a provision as to in what circumstances debts stand discharged under the provisions of the Act. Section 4 reads as follows: