PYARELAL Vs. RANI RAMAN KUMARI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THESE three references have been made by Jagat Narayan, J. , in revision petitions filed in this Court and a common question of law regarding interpretation of Sections 5 and 6 of the Rajas-than Relief of Agricultural Indebtedness Act, 1957 (Act No. 28 of 1957) (hereinafter called the Act) has been raised in them. These sections run as follows:-"5. Abatement or stay of suit or insolvency petition.-- (1) Whenever a suit or an insolvency petition against a debtor shall have been brought or made and pending in a competent Court and such debtor or the person who brought or made such suit or petition applies to such Court in this behalf, the Court shall

(2.) IN Civil Revision No. 209/66 Pyarelal had filed a suit against Smt. Rani Raman kumari for the recovery of Rs. 1066,76 in the court of Munsif East, Jaipur City. The defendant filed an application in that suit contending that she was an agriculturist and was a debtor within the meaning of Section 2 (cc) of the Act and that she would file an application under Section 6 of the Act in the competent Debt Relief court and that till then the suit be stayed. The court accepted that she was a debtor and stayed the proceedings in the suit. Shrimati Rani Raman Kumari then filed an application under Section 6 (1) of the Act before the Munsif Dausa praying for determination of her debts. On 2nd August, 1964 counsel for the plaintiff admitted in the court of Munsif, East Jaipur City that the defendant had filed an application under Section 6 (1) of the Act and on this admission the court passed the order that in view of the admission, the suit be stayed and added that the suit be struck off from its number and be consigned to the record room. There is no express order of the abatement of the suit. On 23rd December, 1964 the Debt relief Court decided that Rani Raman Kumari was not a debtor within the meaning of the Act and her application under Section 6 (1) of the Act was not maintainable. Thereupon on 24th March, 1965 the plaintiff filed an application in the court of munsif, East Jaipur City, that the suit filed by him be restored to its original number and that further proceedings be taken thereon. The learned Munsif by his order dated 5th May, 1965 relying on the authority of this Court in Karansee v. Bastichand, 3964 Raj LW 442 dismissed the application on the ground that the suit could not be restored as it had abated. The plaintiff filed a revision application in this Court which came for hearing before Jagat Narayan J. The learned Judge has taken the view that Karansee's case, 3964 Raj LW 442 required to be reconsidered. He formulated the following question and referred the case to a larger bench:-

(3.) THE facts in Civil Revision No. 382/ 66 are similar except that the court in which the suit was filed had passed an express order of abatement of the suit.