DARYA Vs. RAM KISHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This petition under Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure has been filed against the order of the Sub-Judge Ist Class, Narwana, dated November 28, 1977, whereby the judgment-debtor was held a small farmer but not a debtor within the meaning of the Haryana Relief of Agricultural Indebtedness Act, 1976 (Haryana Act No. 18 of 1976) (hereinafter called the Act).

(2.) The learned counsel for the petitioner has challenged the finding of the executing Court and has urged once it is held that the judgment-debtor is a small farmer, he is covered by the definition of the judgment-debtor within the meaning of clause (g) of Section 2 of the Act. It is further urged that he being a debtor, the Civil Court has no jurisdiction to proceed with the execution proceedings by virtue of Section 19 of the Act.

(3.) The learned counsel for the decree-holder does not dispute that the petitioner is a debtor within the meaning of the Act but he contended that the provisions of Section 19 which were enforced with effect from March 30, 1976 are not retrospective and, therefore, do not debar the continuance of the pending execution proceedings. The argument of the learned counsel for the decree-holder appears to be unassailable. All that Section 19 of the Act says is that no Civil Court shall entertain any application to execute a decree passed by a Civil Court against a judgment-debtor. The bar provided in this section would be applicable with effect from the date this section was enforced and it has obviously no retrospective effect.