BISHWA NATH GUPTA Vs. BASDEOMAL JOGDHIAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This revision came up before one of us, but, having regard to the importance of the question involved in it, it was referred to a Bench for decision. Shortly put, the question which has been raised in at is whether the Munsif acted illegally and with material irregularity in coming to the conclusion that the matter in dispute was not covered by the definition of "debt" under Section 2 (6) of the Displaced Persons (Debts Adjustment) Act, No. LXX of 1951, and in refusing to stay the proceedings in the suit under Section 15 of the Act.

(2.) The facts which gave rise to this revision may be briefly stated. Messrs. Basdeomal Jogdhian instituted suit No. 518 of 1951 against Bishwanath Gupta and Brindaban Gupta on the 12th of September, 1951, in the court of the Munsif of Dehradun for dissolution of partnership and for accounts. The suit was defended by Bishwanath Gupta alone. During the pendency of the suit Bishwanath Gupta made an application under Section 5 of the Displaced Persons (Debts Adjustment) Act of 1951 before the Tribunal constituted under that Act at Delhi for the adjustment of his debts, alleging himself to be a displaced debtor. The Tribunal at Delhi informed the Munsif of Dehradun that such an application had been filed and it asked the Munsif to stay further proceedings before him as enjoined under Section 15 of the Act. The Tribunal further asked that the necessary papers relating to the claim may be transferred to the Tribunal as provided under the Act. On the 25th of July, 1955, the Munsif passed an interim stay order in term of Section 15, but in a subsequent order dated the 10th of September, 1955, which is the subject matter of this revision, the Munsif came to the conclusion that the claim was clearly not a "debt" as defined in the Act and consequently Section 15 shall have no application to the case. The Munsif, therefore, vacated the interim order of stay and refused to transfer the record to the Tribunal at Delhi, and directed the suit to proceed.

(3.) Two questions have been argued before us. Firstly, that the point whether the subject matter of this suit was or was not a "debt" as defined under the Act, was not, open to the Munsif to decide and that the determination of that question lay within the exclusive jurisdiction of the Tribunal. Secondly, that as soon as an application was made under Section 5 of the Act the consequences enunciated in Section 15 ensued and all proceedings pending in any civil court in respect of any debt to which the displaced debtor was subject at the date of the said application had, of necessity, to be stayed and the records of the proceedings were required to be transferred to the Tribunal.