GOMTIBAI Vs. RATAN PRAKASH RAMNATH JHA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) IN this petition under Article 227 of the Constitution, two orders are challenged. One was passed in an Execution Proceeding, on 5-12-1986, by learned Civil Judge, Class I, Dabra, and the other, on 18-2-1989, in revision, by the learned Fourth Additional District Judge, Gwalior, confirming that order. Those orders had common source in the application of respondent filed on 12-8-1985 in the Execution proceeding (Annexure R/1 of the return), claiming discharge from the decretal debt in terms of the provisions of the Madhya Pradesh Gramin Rin Vimukti Adhiniyam, 1982, for short, the Adhiniyam.

(2.) BEFORE us, those orders are challenged on the ground of jurisdictional incompetence of the courts concerned. In regard to facts, therefore, suffice to say this much only that the petitioner had obtained a decree for a sum of Rs. 5,660/- against the respondent for which execution was levied. That decree was passed in a suit instituted in 1980. As per Annexure 11, the respondent had made an application in that suit on 1-1-1981 for "permission to defend the suit" and in that application, one of the pleas raised was that the plaintiff (herein petitioner) was not entitled to claim interest of Rs. 1,800/- on loan advanced for Rs. 3,500/ -. It is not necessary to refer to the other pleas or even the defence set up because in his application, Annexure R-1 the respondent also stated that the judgment and decree was ex parte and were that copy of the judgment was not filed by the decree-holder in the execution case. However, the same, plea of excessive interest (raised in Annexure-11) was reiterated in Annexure R/1, submitting that post-decree interest was not awarded and that otherwise too, interest was wrongly claimed. In support of his claim for "discharge" under the Adhiniyam, he stated in the said application that he was of Lohar (blacksmith) caste and that his vocation was repairing of tools and implements used by villagers and that he did carpenter's work in villages on wages.

(3.) RESPONDENT's counsel Shri Naik reminded us of the limitations of our jurisdiction and stressed that findings of fact reached by two Courts below are immune to our scrutiny. Counsel cited Mamti Bala Rout, AIR 1974 SC 2051, Babhutmal Raichand Oswal, AIR 1975 SC 1297 and S. P. Deshmukh, AIR 1977 SC 1985. That is a valid and unexceptional proposition and there is no dispute with that. Both courts have reached categorically the conclusive finding that respondent was a resident of Dabra town and that he was engaged in Dabra as also in villages in making and repairing wooden implements used in agriculture. In allowing respondent's application (Annexure R/1) and dismissing the Execution application of the petitioner, both Courts based their decision on the interpretation of the relevant statutory provision. They have taken the view that to be a "rural artisan" as defined in section 2 (k) of the Adhiniyam, one need not actually live or reside in a rural area and that it would suffice if such a person did not hold any agricultural land, like the respondent. We are, therefore, required to interpret the relevant provision of the two courts below. On their "finality", we reserve comments. It is necessary, however, to examine not only if law was correctly interpreted in holding that respondent was a "rural artisan" but if courts below had jurisdiction to decide his application (Annexure R-1) and allow his claim that he was "wholly discharged" of the decretal debt.