VINAYAK PANDURANGRAO Vs. SHESHADASACHARYA RAMACHARYA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is a revision application against an order made by the First Class Subordinate Judge of Bijapur under Section 37 of the Bombay Agricultural Debtors Relief Act, XXVIII of 1939. The applicant obtained a decree against the opponent in Small Cause; Suit No. 1531 of 1932 on March 24, 1933, and filed darkhast No. 478 of 1936 to execute the decree, and a land belonging to the opponent was attached. The proceedings were transferred to the Collector for sale of the property. Five days before the date fixed for the sale, the opponent made an application under the Bom bay Agricultural Debtors Relief Act that the execution proceedings should be stayed.

(2.) To that application the applicant put in his objections. These were heard on July 20,. 1942, and the case was adjourned to August 10, 1942, for passing orders. On August 10 and 13, 1942, the opponent put in affidavits of two persons on hi's behalf to show that his father Ramacharya, the original debtor, had been personally cultivating his fields. The applicant contended that the allegations made in the affidavits were false and asked that he should be given an opportunity to cross-examine the deponents and to produce certain documents to rebut the affidavits. The documents which he produced were extracts from the Record of Rights showing that seven different lands be longing to Ramacharya had been let out to tenants in the years 1929-30 and 1930-31. The learned Judge admitted the documents but made no orders as to the prayer for cross-examining the deponents, and on the same day he made an order holding that the opponent was a debtor as defined in the Bombay Agricultural Debtors Relief Act and that his debts did not amount to more than Rs. 15,000. He directed that the proceedings should be transferred to the Debt Adjustment Board at Indi for deci sion according to law. Against that order the applicant has come in revision on the ground that there was no satisfactory evidence to show that the opponent's father had been personally cultivating lands, that the Judge should not have allowed the opponent to put in affidavits without the knowledge of the applicant and after the hearing of the case had been concluded, and that his doing so amounted to a material irregularity.

(3.) A preliminary objection has been raised on behalf of the opponent that no revision application can lie to this Court. The order complained against is admittedly one. made under Section 37 of the Agricultural Debtors Relief Act. That section provides that all pending suits and applications for execution before any civil Court in which the question involved is the recovery of any debt from a person who is a debtor under the Act, if such person ordinarily] resides in any local area for which a Board is established under Section 4 of the Act or belongs to a class of debtors for which a Board is established under that section shall, if the total amount of debts due from such debtor is not more than Rs, 15,000, be transferred to the Board to which an application for adjustment of debts of such person under Section 17 lies. No such transfer can be made unless notice has been given to all parties to the suit or application. The section also provides that the decision of the Court on the points whether such person is a debtor under the Act and whether the amount of his debts is not more than Rs. 15,000 shall be final. Section 73 of the Act provides that except as otherwise provided by the Act and notwithstanding anything contained in any1 other law no- civil Court shall entertain or proceed with any suit or proceeding in respect of (i) any matter pending before the Board or the Court under the Act, or (ii) the validity of any procedure or the legality of any award, order or decision of the Board or of the Court. It is contended. that under both these sections this Court is debarred from interfering in revision with the order made by the learned Judge.