KARAN SEE Vs. BASTICHAND

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THESE three revision applications were heard together as the same question of law as to the interpretation of the provisions of the Rajasthan Relief of Agricultural Indebtedness Act, 1957, as amended by the Rajasthan Relief of Agricultural Indebtedness (Amendment) Act, 1960, arises in all of them.

(2.) CIVIL Revision No. 26/62 was filed by the creditor against an order of the executing court staying the execution proceedings under sec. 6 (3) of the Act. The contention on behalf of the creditor decree-holder was that the only proceedings contemplated under sec. 5 are proceedings in a suit and insolvency proceedings and that execution proceedings cannot be stayed under sec. 6 (3) of the Act upon the admission of an application under sec. 6 (1 ). This matter came up for consideration before a Division Bench of this Court in Karansee vs. Son Singh (1 ). It was held that the scope of an application under sec. 6 (1) for determination of debts, having regard to the definition of the term "debt" must be considered wide enough to include decretal debts as well. Execution proceedings were therefore rightly stayed under sec. 6 (3 ).

(3.) I am accordingly of the opinion that the expression "abatement as used in the Act means the same thing as it means u/o. 22 of the Code of Civil Procedure.