JUDGMENT Yorke and Ghulam Hasan JJ. 1. This is an application u/s 115 of the CPC and arises in the following way. 2. The plaintiff-applicant filed a suit for accounts before the Munsif North Lucknow on 23rd March, 1936, under. Section 33 of the U.P. Agriculturists'. Relief Act with respect to certain mortgages and promissory notes executed, by him in favour of the defendants opposite parties. In September, 4936, while the said suit was pending he applied u/s 4 of the U.P. Encumbered. Estates Ac: before the learned Special Judge, 1st grade., against the various creditors including the opposite-parties. The opposite-parties applied to the learned Special Judge; 1st grade, to stay the suit pending, before the learned Munsif North Lucknow u/s 33 of the U.P. Agriculturists Relief Act. This prayer was refused. An appeal against the aforesaid decision was also dismissed. Subsequently, they applied to the learned Munsif North Lucknow for stay of the suit u/s 7 of the U.P. Encumbered Estates Act. By an order dated 2nd May, 1939, the learned Munsif North Lucknow directed the stay of proceedings u/s 33 of the U.P. Agriculturists Relief Act till the disposal of. the proceedings under the Encumbered Estates Act pending before the learned Special Judge, 1st grade, Lucknow. The applicant (debtor) comes Up in revision against the aforesaid order of the learned Munsif. 3. The matter originally came up before our learned brother, the late Mr. Justice Radha Krishna Srivastava who by an order dated 23rd January 1940, referred the question in issue for decision to a Bench of this Court u/s 1 Clause 2 of the Oudh Courts Act inasmuch as in his opinion there was a conflict of authority between the two decisions of this Court reported in Pandit Ramsagar Prasad v. Mst. Shayama `: 1939 AWR (CC) 35 and Lal Baijnath Singh v. Lata Tulshi Ram 1939 OA 378 : 1939 AWR (CC) 73 and a case of the Allahabad High Court reported in Chaudhari Sheo Baron Singh v. Ranbir Prasad. 4. The question for determination before us is whether the learned Munsif had the jurisdiction to stay the suit u/s 33 of the U.P. Agriculturists Relief Act, pending before him under the provisions of Section 7(1) (a) of the Encumbered Estates Act. Section 7 clause 1. 4. The question for determination before us is whether the learned Munsif had the jurisdiction to stay the suit u/s 33 of the U.P. Agriculturists Relief Act, pending before him under the provisions of Section 7(1) (a) of the Encumbered Estates Act. Section 7 clause 1. (a) lays down- When the Collector has passed an order u/s 6 the following consequences shall ensue -(a) all proceedings pending at the date of the said order in any Civil or Revenue Court in the United Provinces in respect of any public or private debt to which the landlord is subject or with which his immovable property is encumbered, except an appeal review or revision against a decree or order, shall be stayed, all attachments, and other execution processes issued by any such Court and then in force in respect of any such debt shall become null and void, and no fresh process in execution shall, except as hereinafter provided, be issued. 5. It is contended on behalf of the debtor that Section 7(O)(a) refers to proceedings and suits against the debtor and not by him. Reliance is placed upon a decision of the Allahabad High Court reported in (Chaudhari Sheo Baran Singh v. Ranbir Prasad 1938 AWR (HC) 324 : AIR 1838 All. 477 where it was held that: the proceedings attachments, processes and suits mentioned in clauses (a) and (9) of Section 7 U.P. Encumbered Estates Act are proceedings, attachments processes and suits against the landlord in respect of debts and the landlord himself Is not necessarily under any disability for taking proceedings which he may be entitled to take under the law for the protection of his interest. 6. No reasons are given in support of the view taken in the above case. 7. We are of opinion that the language of Section 7.(1) (a) of the U.P. Encumbered Estates Act is quite clear and unambiguous and leaves no room for doubt that it applies to all proceedings in any Civil Court whether instituted by the landlord (debtor) or by the claimant (creditor). We do not think that the legislature could have contemplated that a debtor should carry on two separate proceedings under the Agriculturists' Relief Act as well as under, the U.P. Encumbered Estates Act simultaneously. The intention of the legislature must be gathered. We do not think that the legislature could have contemplated that a debtor should carry on two separate proceedings under the Agriculturists' Relief Act as well as under, the U.P. Encumbered Estates Act simultaneously. The intention of the legislature must be gathered. from the language of Section 7 (1) (a) of the Encumbered Estates Act, and it is not permissible far us to read into that section an intention which the legislature has not chosen to express. We feel we are justified in this conclusion by the language of Section 14 Clause 4 (c) at the Encumbered Estates Act which definitely states that: the provisions of the United Provinces Agriculturists' Relief Act of 1934 shall not be applicable to proceedings under this Act. 8. It seems to us that the legislature provided separate relief's to a debtor under the Agriculturists' Relief Act and the Encumbered Estates Act, and it was left to him to choose whether he should take advantage of the provisions of Section 33 of the Agriculturists' Relief Act or Section 4 of the Encumbered Estates Act. u/s 33 of the Agriculturists Relief Act an agriculturist debtor is entitled to sue for sin account of money lent or advanced to or paid for him by any persons. The Court is given the power to follow the prolusions of Chapter IV of the Act' and the provisions of the Usurious Loans Act X of 1918. Sections 28 to 31 of Chapter IV deal with the reduction of interest in favour of the debtor. Section 32 relates to the duty of a creditor to maintain and furnish accounts while Section 34 imposes penalties for non-compliance with the provisions of Section 32 namely the disallowance of interest and costs. Ample relief is available to a debtor under the provisions of Section 14 (4) (a) and (b) of the Encumbered Estates Act. A careful perusal of the aforesaid provisions in the two Acts is enough to show that the legislature did not intend the continuation of the proceedings under the Agriculturist Relief Act when the debtor had applied u/s 4 of the Encumbered Estates Act. Once the debt is proved under the provisions of the latter Act there seems to be no good reason for the continuation of the proceedings under the Agriculturists' Act. 9. Once the debt is proved under the provisions of the latter Act there seems to be no good reason for the continuation of the proceedings under the Agriculturists' Act. 9. The debtor himself submitted to the jurisdiction of the Special Judge by applying u/s 4 of the Encumbered Estates Act and it is somewhat anomalous that he should be allowed to carry on proceedings at the same time u/s 33 of the U.P. Agriculturists' Relief Act. 10. We are therefore of opinion that Section 7(1) (a) upon a proper construction of its language unmistakably shows that it applies to all proceedings whether instituted by the, debtor or by the creditor. 11. In a case reported in Ambika Prasad v. Mst. Maqbulunnissa 1940 OA 138 : 1940 AWR (C.C.) 61 it was held that: Clause (b) of Section 7(1) appears on the face of it to apply to a suit for other proceeding filed by a party after the passing of an order u/s 6 and does not contemplate suits or proceedings remanded by a Court of Appeal. 12. At page 140 however it was observed following the view enunciated in Chaudhri Sheo Baran Singh v. Ranbir Prasad (3) that: both the clauses of Section 7(1) appear to contemplate suits or proceedings against landlords for enforcement of debts due by them and not to suits at proceedings that the landlords themselves are entitled to institute under any law. 13. We are of opinion that the 'latter observation was really not necessary for the decision of that case. 14. The result is that the decision of the lower Court directing the stay of the proceedings u/s 33 of the Agriculturists' Relief Act till the disposal of the proceedings under the Encumbered Estates Act pending between the parties before the Special Judge, 1st grade, is correct The application fails and is dismissed with costs.