JANARDAN MISRA Vs. SIDHA BAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS revision is from the order passed by the learned Munsif, Puri, directing abatement of the execution proceeding under Section 3 (1)(c) of the Orissa Debt Relief Act (hereinafter referred to as the 'Act').

(2.) THE facts may be narrated in brief. The petitioner instituted a money Suit (O. S. No 309 of 1971 -III) based on a promissory note against the opposite party in the Court of the Munsif, Puri, and on 21 -3 -1972 obtained an ex parte decree for the sum of Rs. 829/ - and cost of Rs. 158.13. He put the decree into execution in Execution Case No. 139 of 1978. The opposite party being the judgment -debtor entered appearance and filed a petition under Section 3(1)(c) of the Act. He stated therein that he was a scheduled debtor, being a small farmer owing less than one standard acre of land and his annual total income did not exceed Rs. 2,400/ -. The petitioner in his counter denied the above allegations and averred that the opposite party was not a scheduled debtor and his monthly income from labour was Rs. 500/ -. He had also business in vegetables and coconut which yielded additional income. He took a false plea in order to avoid payment of the decretal dues.

(3.) MR . N. C. Pati, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, urged that the petitioner did not carry on business of money -lending. He had advanced a friendly loan to the opposite party. Therefore, the provisions of the Act are not applicable to the facts of this case. Accordingly the order of abatement of the execution proceeding cannot be sustained in law. This point is one of law and has been raised for the first time in this revision which deserves to be critically examined.