HASTIMAL JOHURMAL AURBAVAT Vs. NARAYAN N MAHGUNDE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) These two revision applieations can be disposed of by a common judgment and order as they are between the same parties an as they arise from allied applicantion- Hastimal the petitioner gave a loan of Rs. 500/- to Narayan, the respondent No 1 Both the respondents Nos. 1 and 2 were liable to discharge the loan as both of them executed a promissory note in respect of the said loan. In Regular Civil Suit No. 1164 of 1971 filed in the Court of Small Causes at Poona a decree for Rs. 518/-was passed in favour of the petitioner. Execution proceedings were adopted by filing Darkhast No. 281 of 1972 by the petitioner as decree-holder. During the course of these execution proceedings it was sought to be contended by the respondents that in view of the provisions of the Maharashtra Debt Relief Act, 1975 (Maharashtra Act No. 3 of 1976) (hereinafter referred to as '' the Act " ) the debts of the respondents were duly discharged and as there was a dispute as regardi the said debt it should be referred to the authority under the Act. That application of the respondents has been granted by the learned Judge and by his order dated July 6, 976 he has stayed the execution proceedings and refered the matter to the Authorised Officer as provided by the Act. The second revision application arises out of an application filed by the petitioner as decree-holder to contend that the attachment levied pursuant to the exacution of the decree ought not to be raised and it should continue to remain in force. That application was rejected. It is against these two orders passed in the two applications that the present two rvision application have been filed by the decree-holder petitioner.

(2.) Mr. Pradhan on behalf of the petitioner at the outset states that even though the execution Darkhast is filed against both the respondents no step whatsoever will be taken by him or his client for execution of tue decree against the respondent No. 2, and the proceedings in execution will only be restricted to recovery of the amount due under the decree from the respondent No t He submilted that on the admission of the respondent No. 1 his monthly salary was Rs. 824/- Accordingly having regird to the definition of the word " debt " given in section 2 (e) of the Act, this was n t a debt under the provisions of section 4 there was no question of such debt being discharged. On the other hand, Mr. Divekar on behalf of the respondent No. 1 submitted that it is not even controverted by the petitioner that his client the Respondent No. 1 is a worker and his immoveable properties are not of a value exceeding Rs. 20,000/- If that was so, then that question that has to be considered is whether on the admitted facts a question arose which required to be referred to the authorities under the Act under section 12 thereof If on the admission of Mr Divekar the amount due by the respondent No. 1 to the petitioner the decree- holder is not a debt then the question of a reference is incompetent.

(3.) At the outset I will make it clear that a concession was made by Mr Pradhan on behalf of the decree-holder that this decree shall not be executed at any stage against the respondent No. 2 and the Darkhast application should be regarded as dismissed as against the respondent No 2.