GOPAL SINGH Vs. KANWAR SINGH ETC.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In a suit for money the Defendant applied for a finding that he was a "debtor" as defined by the Himachal Pradesh Relief of Agricultural Indebtedness Ordinance, 1975. Paragraph 2 (e) defines a 'debtor' as a marginal farmer, a landless agricultural labourer or a rural artisan who is in debt, but the expression does not include a small farmer. Paragraph 2(2) of the Ordinance provides that if a question arises whether a person is a marginal or small farmer or a landless agricultural labourer or a rural artisan, the question has to be referred to an officer not below the rank of Tehsildar duly appointed in that behalf by the State Government. The decision of such officer on the question has been made final and conclusive and cannot be called in question in any civil Court. When the Defendant alleged in the suit before the trial court that he was a debtor he did not specify whether he was a marginal farmer or a landless agricultural labourer or a rural artisan. He led no evidence whatever to indicate what kind of debtor he was. The trial court has dismissed his application. Against that order the Defendant now applies in revision.

(2.) Plainly, paragraph 2(2) envisages that a question must arise whether a person is a marginal farmer or a landless agricultural labourer or a rural artisan and it is only when the trial court is satisfied that such question arises that it can refer the question to the officer specified in that clause. A question arises only when a case is pleaded by one party and is controverted by the other. There is no doubt that the trial court has jurisdiction to refer the question, but before any reference can be made it must be satisfied that the question envisaged in that clause does arise. The trial court will examine the material on the record for that purpose. There must be a clear pleading by the party claiming the benefit of the Ordinance that he is a marginal farmer, a landless agricultural labourer or a rural artisan. It is only if there is a specific pleading to that effect that it can be said that the party has alleged that he is a debtor within the meaning of the Ordinance. It is not sufficient for a party to plead merely that he is a debtor. A pleading to that effect is meaningless. There is no burden cast on the court to investigate and determine which one of the three categories comprehended within the definition of debtor is attracted in the particular case. In my opinion, the trial court was perfectly right in holding that the application made by the Petitioner was vague and incompetent, and that no reference is called for. Indeed, had such a reference been made by the trial court on the pleading as framed by the Petitioner, such a reference would have been misconceived.

(3.) Learned Counsel for the Petitioner has drawn my attention to the observation of the trial court that the Respondents had brought on the record copies of revenue entries showing that the Petitioner was the owner in possession of land measuring more than 29 bighas and that therefore it was clear that there was no case for a reference. As regards this observation, I am of opinion that it should not be taken as a finding on the question whether the Petitioner was or was not a "debtor". The trial court having held that the application of the Petitioner was vague and having decided for that reason that it was not justified in making a reference it should not have gone on to express any opinion on the question on its merits.