LEGAL REPRESENTATIVES Vs. SHIVLAL SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) SHIVLAL Singh S/o Shri Chiman Singh filed a suit against the defendant Shivlal Singh S/o Shri Ranjeet Singh in the Court of the Munsif and Judicial Magistrate, Sojat, for an amount of Rs. 1400/ -. The suit was based on a pronote executed by Shivlal Singh S/o Shri Ranjeet Singh. During the pendency of the suit, the debtor Shivlal Singh S/o Ranjeet Singh filed an application under Section 6 of the Rajasthan Relief of Agricultural Indebtedness Act, 1957 (for short, 'the Act') in the Court of the Judge, Debt Relief Court, Sojat, for the determination of his debt. This application of the debtor Shivlal Singh S/o Ranjeet Singh was admitted by the Debt Relief Court. The debtor thereafter moved an application under Section 5 of the Act in the suit pending before the Munsif and Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Sojat, that the application under Section 6 of the Act has been admitted with respect to the determination of the amount involved in the present suit and is pending before him. The learned Munsif, in view of the pendency of the application under Section 6 of the Act before the Debt Relief Court, order for the abatement of the suit pending before him. During the pendency of the proceedings before the Debt Relief Court, the plaintiff Shivlal Singh S/o Shri Chiman Singh died on December 6, 1982, but his legal representatives were not brought on record in those proceedings and the proceedings continued before the Debt Relief Court in his absence. On December 20, 1990, when the case was fixed before the learned Debt Relief Court, neither the applicant Shivlal Singh S/o Ranjeet Singh was present nor was his counsel present and, therefore, the learned Judge of the Debt Relief Court dismissed the application under Section 6 of the Court, filed by the applicant, on the ground of non -appearance of the applicant and for non -prosecution and consigned the file to the record. The following order was passed by the learned Judge of the Debt Relief odhy .........[vernacular ommited text]........... After the dismissal of the application on February 20, 1990, by the Judge of the Debt Relief Court, the legal representatives of the deceased Shivlal Singh moved an application on March 5, 1990, before the learned Munsif for setting -aside the abatement and for the revival of the suit. The legal representatives, also, moved and application under Order 22 rule 3 C.P.O. for taking the legal representatives of deceased Shivlal Singh on record. The learned Munsif, by his order dated September 5, 1990, dismissed both the applications filed by the petitioner for restoring the suit as well as to implead the legal representatives of deceased Shivlal Singh S/o Chiman Singh on record. It is against this order that the petitioners have preferred the present revision petition.

(2.) PLAINTIFF Shivlal Singh S/o Chaiman Singh died on December 6, 1982, during the pendency of the proceedings under Section 6 of the Act and his legal representatives were not taken on record. No application was filed by the applicant Shivlal Singh S/o Ranjeet Singh before the Debt Relief Court. He even did not appear before the Debt Relief Court on February 20, 1990, and the application filed by Shivlal Singh S/o Ranjeet Singh was dismissed for his non -appearance and for non -prosecution. The effect of the rejection of the application of the debtor, filed under Section 6 of the Act is that the proceedings in a Civil Suit, pending before the Civil Court, are to be revived. The effect of the order under Section 6 of the Act for the abatement of the suit does not amount to the dismissal or final disposal of the case. It only amounts to the stay of the suit in certain circumstances and when the proceedings before the Debt Relief Court came to an end on account of the non -appearance or for nonprosecution then the order of the admission of the application under Section 6 of the Act stands set -aside by the Debt Relief Court and the proceedings before the Civil Court have to be revived on the application made by the plaintiff. The Court can even seo noto revive the proceedings if it receives information from the Debt Relief Court regarding the dismissal of the application. This view, taken by me, is based upon the Division Bench Judgment of this Court in the case of Pyare Lal v. Rani Raman Kumar 1970 R.L.W. 159 wherein it has been observed as under: In all the cases before us, the abatement has taken place under Section 6(1)(ii). Now, it may turn out that the application filed by a person claiming himself to be a debtor within the meaning of Section 2(1) of the Act may be dismissed on the objection taken by his creditors that he is not a debtor within the meaning of the Act or the Court in which the application is filed is not competent to entertain the application or that the application does not comply with the provisions of Section 6(3). What is to be done after such abatement? The Debt Relief Court dismissing or rejecting the application must withdraw the notice of the admission of the application which it had sent to the Court concerned and even if it does not expressly withdraw such notice, it must be deemed to have done so by dismissing or rejecting the application of that person. What is the effect then on the statement of the suit after such notice of admission has been withdrawn by the Debt Relief Court? Will the order of abatement remain in force even after the notice is withdrawn of deemed to be withdrawn? Such cannot be the consequences. In effect the Debt Relief Court informs the Court in which the suit is pending that it was not right in sending the notice of admission to the Court in which the suit is filed and it further in that Court of the rectification of that mistake. Even if no express information is sent, then by rejecting the application of that person who has filed the application under Section 6(1) of the Act, the Court must be deemed to have sent such notice. Obviously the order of abatement could not have been operative had this mistake been not made by the Debt Relief Court. As soon as the Court rectifies this mistake by rejecting the application, it means to convey to the Court that so far as it is concerned, it places no hurdle in the progress of the suit. The Court, in which the suit is pending, is, therefore, duty -bound to revive the proceedings either suo moto or at the instance of the plaintiff who has filed the suit.

(3.) THE application under Order 22 rule 3 C.P.C., filed by the petitioner for taking the legal representatives on record, was dismissed by the learned trial Court on the ground that since the suit has already stood abated and no proceedings can be taken in the suit, and, therefore, the application under Order 22 rule 3 C.P.C. cannot be considered. Since the order for the abatement of the suit has been set -aside and the suit has been revived, the learned trial Court is directed to consider the application under Order 22 Rule 3 C.P.C. in accordance with law and to proceed with the trial in accordance with law.