DAYA BAI Vs. BADRI NARAIN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is a revision application by the plaintiff against an order of Additional munsif No. 1, Jodhpur, abating her suit for recovery of money pending before him.

(2.) DURING the pendency of the suit the defendant filed an application in the Debt relief Court under Section 6 of the Rajasthan Relief of Agricultural Indebtedness act, 1957. That application was not admitted, but notices were issued to the creditors to show cause why it should not be admitted. The question as to whether or not the defendant is a debtor within the meaning of the Act is pending investigation before the Debt Relief Court. During the pendency of that application the defendant filed an application before the Civil Court purporting to be under section 21 of the Act in which a prayer was made that the plaintiff be asked to prosecute her remedy before the Debt Relief Court as the Civil Court had ceased to have any jurisdiction.

(3.) ON this application the learned Additional Munsif abated the suit holding that because the application of the defendant under Section 6 has been registered and notices have been issued to the creditors, it should be deemed to have been admitted. This order is clearly erroneous. Section 5 (1) (i) lays down that the court shall abate the suit if it is satisfied that an application to the Debt Relief court under Section 6 has been made and admitted and is pending. It is clear from the wordings of this provision that before a suit can be abated the application should not only have been made but should have been admitted and should be pending. It is also clear that the Legislature has drawn a distinction between the making of application and admission of it. As soon as an application is made it has to be registered and the fact that it has been registered does not mean that it has been admitted. Section 16 of the Act runs as follows :---