SHANKAR YELLAPPA JADHAV Vs. RAMCHANDRA RAJARAM SHANKE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner challenges the concurrent finding of the two Courts below in this Revision.

(2.) Briefly stated, the facts which are relevant for the purpose of decision of this Revision, are : Respondent No. 1 had obtained money decree against the petitioner for a sum of Rs. 3810/- with 6% interest of Rs. 3000/- from 13.4.71. The First Appeal as well as Second Appeal against the said Order were dismissed. When respondent No. 1 filed execution application, the petitioner took the plea that he was an agricultural labourer and village artisan, as a result of which he was protected under the Goa, Daman and Diu Agricultural Debt Relief Act, 1980, and that the execution proceedings be stayed. This objection was dismissed by the Civil Judge and appeal carried by the petitioner before the District Judge was also dismissed.

(3.) I have heard Advocates for the parties. The Debt Relief Board which is required to be constituted under the said Act for the purpose of determination as to whether a person is an agricultural labourer or village artisan has yet not been constituted even though 16 years have elapsed since the passing of the said legislation. The lower Courts found that the petitioner had not taken the plea that he was an agricultural labourer or village artisan in the suit. Probably the said plea could not be taken, since when the suit was filed, no such benefit was available to an agricultural labourer or village artisan. The lower Courts also observed that simply because a party puts up a plea of agricultural labourer or village artisan, the Civil Court cannot drop or stay the proceedings on a mere averment to that effect and it is only after such person is held to be agricultural labourer or village artisan by the competent authority i.e. Debt Relief Board that the proceedings can be dropped or stayed. It appears that there is no intention on the part of the Government to constitute Debt Relief Board since 16 years have already elapsed since the legislation in question had been passed. The execution proceedings obviously could not be kept pending or stayed on mere averment of the petitioner that he is an agricultural labourer/village artisan. Accordingly, the objection put forward by the petitioner in the execution proceedings was rightly rejected by the Courts below.