MARUTI DASHARATH Vs. ASLYABAPU KRISHNA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is a reference made to us by the learned District Judge of Ahmednagar with regard to the validity of the transfer of a certain suit pending in the Court of the Civil Judge, Senior Division, Ahmednagar, to the Court established under the Bombay Agricultural Debtors Relief Act. The point formulated by the learned District Judge is as follows : "Whether a suit instituted, for reliefs under Sections 10A and 15D, Dekkhan Agriculturists' Relief Act in respect of a transaction evidenced by a sale-deed of a date prior to 1-1-1927, by a plaintiff residing in an area for which a Board was established under the Bombay Agricultural Debtors Relief Act of 1939 before 1-2-1947, can be transferred under Section 19 (1), Bombay Agricultural Debtors Relief Act of 1947 (the other conditions mentioned in the sub-section being existent)?" This point came before the learned District Judge on a reference made to him by the Court established under the Bombay Agricultural Debtors Relief Act, and the learned District Judge apparently felt some doubt in view of two decisions of this Court in (1) -- 'Somabhai Shanabai v. Narandas Zaverdas', AIR 1949 Bom 308 (A), decided by the Chief Justice and Bavdekar J. and

(2.) a subsequent decision of Bavdekar J. sitting singly in -- 'Tamanna v. Shivappa', Civil Revn. Appln. No. 437 of 1950, D/- 13-2-52 (Bom) (B). He has, therefore, made this reference under the provisions of Order 46, Rule 1, Civil P. C. (2) A preliminary objection taken by Mr. Rele to this reference is that under Sub-section (7) of Section 19, Bombay Agricultural Debtors Relief Act it was the duty of the learned District Judge to decide the point for himself. That sub-section reads as follows :

(3.) It seems to us that the point at issue is concluded by the Division Bench decision of this Court in the case of -- 'Somabhai Shana-bhai v. Narandas Zaverdas (A). The case that the learned Judges had then to consider was as to whether it was competent under Sub-section (1) of Section 19, Bombay Agricultural Debtors Relief Act to transfer to the Court established under that Act a suit which was filed after the period prescribed for the filing of applications under the Act had expired. In that case a suit was filed by the opponent in the Court of the Civil Judge, Senior Division, on 24-7-1946, claiming from the petitioner Rs. 29,999, as a debt due at the foot of accounts. This debt was alleged to have been incurred between, the dates 20-1-1945, and 15-12-1945. On 9-7-1947, the petitioner made an application to the Court for transfer of the suit to the Court under the Bombay Agricultural Debtors Relief Act, and the question that was argued before the learned Judges was whether the learned trial Judge was wrong in refusing the application for a transfer of the suit to the Court established under the Bombay Agricultural Debtors Relief Act. In that case the defendant was a resident of Thasara Taluka, and the Board for that Taluka was established on 1-4-1945. An application for the adjustment of debts had to be made within the time fixed by Section 4 of the Act and that time expired on 31-10-1945, which was the last date for making applications to the Board. The suit was filed on 24-7-1946, long after the period for filing the application had expired, and it was held by the learned Judge that "Under Section 19(1), Bombay Agricultural Debtors Relief Act, 1947, only such suits, appeals, applications for execution and proceedings can be transferred which were pending at the date when an application under Section 4 could be made to the Special Court set up under the Act." As the particular suit was not pending before the ordinary Court on 31-10-1945, the Bench of this Court came to the conclusion that it was not a suit to which the provisions of Sub-section (1) of Section 19 applied and that therefore it could not be transferred to the Special Court established under the Bombay Agricultural Debtors Relief Act.