BHOLA SINGH Vs. LACHHMAN DASS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS case has been referred to the Division Bench by S. P. Goyal, J., - -vide his order dated April 27, 1979.

(2.) BRIEF facts giving rise to this revision petition are that the Plaintiff -Respondent has filed a suit for the recovery of Rs. 2,700 in the Court of Subordinate Judge 1st Class, Kurukshetra, in which the Defendant -Petitioner filed an application, alleging therein that he being a marginal farmer, as defined in Section 2 Clause (h) of the Haryana Relief of Agricultural Indebtedness Act, 1976 (Haryana Act No. 18 of 1976) (hereinafter referred to as the Act),, the suit should be dismissed. It was further pleaded that under Section 5 of the Act, every debt, together with any interest payable thereon, owned on the commencement of the Act by a marginal farmer, whose annual household income does not exceed two thousand and four hundred rupees, shall be deemed to be wholly discharged. Thus, according to him, under Section 19, Civil Court cannot entertain this suit. By virtue of the impugned order dated 3rd November, 1978, the trial Court came to the conclusion that so far as Section 19 of the Act is concerned,, it only deals with the loans which have been declared by the Debt Settlement Officer to be debts and bars the jurisdiction of the Civil Court to entertain suits for recovery of such type of debts. Since in the present case, there is no finding of the Debt Settlement Officer declaring the loan in question as a debt, as defined in Section 2 Clause (f), nor the Defendant has been held to be a debtor as contemplated by Section 2 Clause (g), as such the jurisdiction of the Civil Court to try the suit is not barred under Section 19 of the Act, nor a Civil Court can declare that the loan in question shall be deemed to be wholly discharged. According to the trial Court, this job has been assigned to the Debt Settlement Officer and unless he gives a finding that the loan in question is a debt and the Defendant is a debtor, the Civil Court is within its right to proceed with the case as such without deciding the matter as to whether the loan is a debt or not. Consequently, the application of the Defendant -Petitioner was rejected., The main question to be decided in this petition is as to the interpretation of Section 19 of the Act, which reads as under:

(3.) KEEPING all the provisions of the Act in view, it is quite clear that in case any decision has been given by the Debt Settlement Officer, the same shall be final and shall not be called into question in any Court. The question still remains to be decided is that in case either party, i.e. the creditor or the debtor does not approach the Debt Settlement Officer for adjudication by way of application under Section 8 of the Act, whether the jurisdiction of the Civil Court to decide the question of the loan being a debt or the person being a debtor as contemplated under the Act, is barred under Section 19. After hearing the learned Counsel for the parties, we are clearly of the opinion that before the jurisdiction of the Civil Court is barred under Section 19, it will have to decide whether the debt will be deemed to have been duly discharged under the provisions of the Act; or while executing a decree passed by a Civil Court, whether the judgment -debtor is a debtor as contemplated under Section 2 Clause (g) thereof. If a Court, after giving the parties an opportunity to lead evidence, comes to the conclusion that either the person is a debtor or the debt will be deemed to have been discharged under the provisions of this Act, than it will stay its hands to proceed with the matter further. The Act no where provides that it is the sole jurisdiction of the Debt Settlement Officer to decide these matters under the Act. Of course, any decision given by him on all these matters shall be final and will not be called into question, in any Court, but in the absence of any such decision, the Civil Court will be competent to go into the matter to decide these matters, i.e. whether the debt will be deemed to have been duly discharged under the provisions of this Act or the person against whom a decree passed by a Civil Court is being executed, is a debtor or not. The Act no where provides that these matters can only be decided by the Debt Settlement Officer and; by none else. It is well known that the jurisdiction of the Civil Courts can be barred by providing specifically to that effect. Unless there is any specific provision barring the jurisdiction of the Civil Court, directly or indirectly, the Civil Court shall always have the jurisdiction to decide the matter arising before it. Before the bar under Section 19 of the Act is invoked, the Court will have to give a finding on evidence as to whether the person is a debtor or the debt will be deemed to have been duly discharged under the provisions of this Act.