JAGTAR SINGH Vs. HUKAM CHAND

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Respondent Hukam Chand obtained a money decree for Rs. 2,960/- on 29th of March, 1974, against several persons including Jagtar Singh. The decree-holder took out execution which was dismissed on 29th of October, 1975, as it was stated that the matter had been compromised. The decree-holder filed a fresh execution application on 13th of October, 1976, stating that the judgment-debtors had not complied with the terms of the compromise and, therefore, he was entitled to execute the decree afresh. In execution, Jagtar Singh, one of the judgment-debtors, filed an objection petition on 15th of April, 1977, stating that he was a marginal farmer as he possessed 2 kanal 12-1/2 marlas of Nehri land and the decree was not executable against him in view of the provisions of the Haryana Act of Agricultural Indebtedness Act, 1976 (hereinafter called the Act). The Executing Court framed the following issues :-

(2.) The counsel for the petitioner has urged that the execution application dated 13th of October, 1976, was a fresh application and could not in law be treated as an off-shoot of the first execution application which was filed before the coming into force of the Act, as held by the Executing Court. I find merit in this contention. Under the Limitation Act of 1908, the total period of limitation for execution was twelve years but there was a shorter period of three years within which every successive application for execution had to be filed and on those facts there have been certain decisions that executions taken out from time to time were treated as steps in aid of execution. Under the 1963 Limitation Act, the limitation for filing an execution application within three years of the previous execution order has been deleted and there is a larger period of limitation of twelve years within which execution can be taken out. Viewing the matter from the old Limitation Act or the new Limitation Act, each execution application is treated as an independent application. Accordingly, the present execution application will be deemed to have commenced on 13th of October, 1976, on which date the Act had already come into force as the same was published on 26th of March, 1976.

(3.) The next point urged by the counsel is that under the Act the decretal amount is covered under the definition of 'debt' and since the petitioner is a marginal farmer, the debt against him stood discharged the day the Act came into force and as such no execution application was competent against him. In order to appreciate this argument, the following provisions of the Act deserve to be reproduced :-