MADANLAL MULCHAND SONI Vs. SHAIKH MAHIBUB YAKUB

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Now the first point which arises in this revision application is whether the learned Judge's view, that the decree in Civil Suit No. 691 of 1950 was a nullity in view of Section 51 -A of the Bombay Agricultural Debtors Relief Act is right. It has been already mentioned that this point about the bar of Section 51 -A was not specifically urged on behalf of the plaintiff in the trial Court but was urged for the first time in the lower Appellate Court. Under Section 51 -A of the Bombay Agricultural Debtors Relief Act, which will hereafter be referred to as the Act, in so far as it is material -.no civil Court shall entertain or proceed with any suit or proceeding in respect of -

(2.) NOW , Mr. Dalvi, learned advocate appearing on behalf of the petitioners, contends that as the mortgage -debts of the petitioners were not mentioned in the applications filed in the Rahuri Court nor were the petitioners made parties to those applications, it could not be said that Suit No. 691 of 1950 was in respect of any matter pending before the Bombay Agricultural Debtors Relief Court. As against this, Mr. Jahagirdar, learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the opponent, has urged that since a general notice was published under Section 14 of the Act, even though the names of the petitioners were not mentioned in the applications, law will presume that the dispute between the petitioners and the opponent regarding the mortgage -debts was a matter which was pending before the Court under the Act. In support of his argument, Mr. Jahagirdar relied on the ruling in Keshav Ganashyam v. Waman Rangaji (1952) 55 Bom. L.R. 320 where it was held that:

(3.) NOW , there is no dispute in this Court that a general notice was issued by the Rahuri Court under Section 14 of the Act, and Mr. Jahagirdar produced before me a certified copy of the order dated September 8, 1947, which shows that a general notice as contemplated under Section 14 to all creditors of the opponent was in fact issued. Admittedly, the Rahuri Court held that the opponent -plaintiff was a debtor, and his debts did not exceed Rs. 15,000. On the basis of the ruling cited above, the decision of the Rahuri Court would undoubtedly be bidding on the petitioners. But it is admitted that the final award does not mention the petitioners at all nor does it mention the petitioners as creditors. The question is whether the' fact that a general notice is issued under a. 14 would create a bar in the way of the Ahmednagar Court in entertaining and proceeding with Suit No. 691 of 1950, which was filed by the opponent -plaintiff himself. Section 51 -A of the Act ousts the jurisdiction of the civil Court in certain matters, and, in my judgment, it will have to he strictly construed. Two applications were filed by the opponent in the Rahuri Court for adjustment of his debts, and admittedly he did not make the petitioners parties to those applications nor mention in them the mortgage -debts due to the petitioners. He himself filed Suit No. 691 of 1950 under Section 15 -D of the Dekkhan Agriculturists Relief Act. He, no doubt, alleged that the suit was got filed fraudulently by the petitioners, but that allegation of his has not been held established by the lower Appellate Court, and no arguments have been addressed to me on that point. It is true that issue of a general notice under Section 14 would make the award passed in the sense that the petitioners would not be able to dispute under the opponent was a debtor and his debts did not exceed Rs. 15,000. 'But, in my Judgment, the issue of a general notice by itself would not bring the debts under the mortgages created in favour of the petitioner before the Bombay Agriculture Debtors Relief Court since neither the names of these creditors nor their debts were mentioned in the debtor's applications and in the awards that came to be subsequently made and it cannot, therefore, be said that Civil Suit No. 691 of 1950 was a suit in respect of any matter pending before the Court.