SHAH CHATURBHUJ Vs. SHAH MAUJI RAM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The questions of law that arise for decision in this and the connected Civil Revision No. 84 of 1937 are : (1) Whether this Court can in the exercise of its revisional jurisdiction interfere with orders passed by Courts below under Section 5 (1), U.P. Agriculturists Belief Act (Act 27 of 1934)? (2) Whether an application for the conversion of a decree for money into a decree payable by instalments is to be filed in the Court of first instance which decided the suit or in the Court which on appeal or revision passed the ultimate decree in the cause?, and (3) Whether the words "any decree for money" in Section 5, U.P. Agriculturists Belief Act mean only a decree passed on the basis of a "loan" as defined by the Act or include decrees for money of any description whatsoever? The answer to these questions depends on the true interpretation of Section 5 of the Act, the relevant portion of which is-as follows: 5. (1) Notwithstanding anything contained in the Coda of Civil Procedure 1908, the Court shall, unless for reasons to be recorded directs it otherwise, at any time, on the application of the judgment-debtor and after notice to the decree-holder, direct that any decree for money or preliminary decree for sale or foreclosure passed by it or by any Court whose business has been transferred to it against an agriculturist, whether before or after this Act comes into force, shall be converted into a decree for payment by instalments drawn up in such terms as it thinks fit in accordance with the provisions of Section 3.... (2) If, on the application of the judgment-debtor, the Court refuses to grant instalments, or grants a number or period of instalments which the judgment-debtor considers inadequate, its order shall be appealable to the Court to which the Court passing the order is immediately subordinate, and the decision of the Appellate Court shall be final.

(2.) The facts giving rise to the two applications in revision are undisputed and are as follows : Shah Chaturbhuj, the applicant in the two civil revisions before us, brought two suits for damages for false and malicious prosecution against Shah Mauji Ram, the opposite party in the two cases. Both the suits were dismissed by the trial Court but, on appeal to this Court, both the suits were decreed on 3rd December 1935. On 31 August 1936, Mauji Ram filed two applications in the Court below (the trial Court) praying that the decrees in favour of Chaturbhuj be converted into instalment decrees in accordance with the provisions of Section 5, U.P. Agriculturists Belief Act. The learned Civil Judge granted those applications and ordered the payment of the decrees by instalments extending over a period of six years. Shah Chaturbhuj, the decree-holder, has come up in revision to this Court and assails the validity of the orders passed by the learned Civil Judge on the ground that Section 5 of the Act has no application to the decrees obtained by him.

(3.) Before we proceed to consider this contention we must deal with a preliminary objection that has been raised on behalf of Mauji Ram opposite, party to the hearing of these revision applications. It is contended on his behalf that this Court is note competent to exercise revisional jurisdiction with respect to orders passed by Courts below under Section 5(1) of the Act, and in support of this contention reliance is placed on Clause (2) of the section that has boon quoted above. It is pointed out that though a right of appeal is given by that Clause to a judgment- debtor such a right is denied to the decree-holder, and it is argued that the Legislature could not therefore have intended to give to the decree-holder the right to challenge an order under Section 5(1) by means of an application in revision to this Court. Further, emphasis is laid on the provision in Clause (2) that "the decision of the Appellate Court shall be final". It is said that the remedy provided by Clause (2) of Section 5 for challenging orders passed by a Court under Clause (1) of that section is exhaustive, and, as such, an application in revision to this Court is barred. In this connexion reference is made to Section 167, Agra Tenancy Act (Act 2 of 1901) and to the decision of this Court in Bhagwat Das v. Chhedi Koeri Section 167, Tenancy Act provides that: All suits and applications of the nature specified in Schedule 4 shall be heard and determined by the Revenue Courts and, except in the way of appeal, as hereinafter provided, no Court other than a Revenue Court shall take cognizance of any dispute or matter in respect of which any such suit or application might be brought or made.