SOMABHAI SHANABAI PATEL Vs. NARANDAS ZAVERDAS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is a civil revisional application from an order made by the Civil Judge (Senior Division) Nadiad. The applicant made an application that a suit which was pending before the learned Judge should be transferred to the Court set up by the Bombay Agricultural Debtors Relief Act, 1947, under Section 19 of that Act and that application was rejected by the learned Judge.

(2.) The facts may be briefly stated. The opponent filed a suit in the Court of the Civil Judge (Senior Division) Nadiad, on July 24, 1946, claiming from the petitioner Rs. 29,999 as a debt due at the foot of accounts subsisting between him and the petitioner. This debt was alleged to have been incurred between the dates January 20, 1945, a December, 15, 1945. On July 9, 1947, the petitioner made an application to the Court for transfer of his suit to the Court under the Bombay Agricultural Debtors Relief Act, and. the question that has been argued before us by Mr. Patel is that the learned Judge was wrong in refusing the application, that the learned Judge had no jurisdiction to proceed with the suit, and the proper Court which was competent to try the matter was the Court set up by the Bombay Agricultural Debtors Relief Act.

(3.) In order to appreciate the argument it is necessary to look at the scheme of the Act XXVIII of 1947. The Act is intended for the relief of agricultural debtors and the scheme is that Special Courts are set up for the adjustment of debts of these debtors. Relief is not intended to be granted to all debtors but only to debtors whose debt does not exceed the sum of Rs. 15,000. Before Act XXVIII of 1947 was passed, another Act which dealt with the same subject matter and which was intended for the same purpose was on the statute book and that Act was Act XXVIII of 1939. Under that Act Debt Adjustment Boards were also set up for the purpose of adjusting the debt of the agricultural debtors. The defendant is a resident of Thasara taluka and the Board for that taluka was established on April 1, 1945. The scheme of the Act is that applications for the adjustment of the debt can be made either by the debtor or by the creditor. But such an application has to be made within the time fixed by Section 4 of the Act and that time is that the application has got to be made before August 1, 1947, if a Board was established under the old Act on or after February 1, 1947. If the Board was established before that date, then no application can be made under this section. If such an application was made, it would be clearly barred. In this case a Board was established for the Thasara taluka under the old Act on April 1, 1945, and the last date for making the application to that Board was October 31. 1945, and therefore, as I read Section 4, it would not be open either to the debtor or to any creditor to make any application with regard to the adjustment of debts under Section 4 of this Act. Section 11 provides that no application under Section 4 or Section 8, which deals with settlement of debts arrived at between debtors and creditors, shall be entertained by the Court on behalf of or in respect of any debtor, unless the total amount of debts due from him on the date of the application is not more than Rs. 15,000. Section 15 makes all debts void in respect of which no application for adjustment or settlement is made. Section 17 provides for the decision by the Court under the Act of two preliminary issues: one is whether the person for the adjustment of whose debts the application has been made is a debtor and the second is whether the total amount of debt due from such person on the date of the application exceeds Rs. 15,000, and if that Court finds either that such a person is not a debtor or that the amount of debts is more than Rs. 15,000, then the Court must dismiss the application. Then we come to Section 19 which calls for an interpretation at our hands. That section deals with pending suits, appeals and applications, and it provides that all suits, appeals, applications for execution and proceedings other than revisional in respect of any debt pending in any civil Court or revenue Court shall, if they involve the questions whether the person from whom such debt is due is a debtor and whether the total amount of debts due from him on the date of the application exceeds Rs. 15,000, be transferred to the Court. The section is by no means very happily worded, but we have to take legislation as we find it and give to it such effect as we possibly can.