JUDGMENT 1. This is an appeal against the order of the Subordinate Judge, 1st Court, Hooghly, dated the 7th March, 1941, affirming the decision of the Munsif, 2nd Court, Serampore, dated the 22nd August, 1940, whereby the Munsif refused to stay the execution of a decree under sec. 34 of the Bengal Agricultural Debtors Act. The facts of this case are these : The Respondent obtained a decree against the Appellants for about Rs. 1,800. He put this decree into execution. Thereafter, the judgment-debtors, the Appellants before us, made an application for relief under the Bengal Agricultural Debtors Act. In this application they included this decretal debt. Thereupon the Debt Settlement Board issued a notice under sec. 34 of the Act and the execution proceedings were stayed. Thereafter, the application of the debtors was dismissed for default with the result that the stay order under sec. 34 was vacated. The debtors then applied for review of the order of the Debt Settlement Board dismissing their application for default. This application was allowed and their application for relief under the Bengal Agricultural Debtors Act was revived and a fresh notice was issued under sec. 34 upon the executing Court asking that Court to stay the execution proceedings. The Munsif to whom the notice under sec. 34 was sent by the Debt Settlement Board refused to stay the execution proceedings. His order has been affirmed on appeal by the Subordinate Judge. Hence this second appeal by the Debtors. The only point for determination in this appeal is whether the Courts below were right in refusing to stay the execution proceedings on receipt of a notice from the Debt Settlement Board under sec. 34 of the Bengal Agricultural Debtors Act. The material portion of sec. 34 is in these terms: When an application under sec. 8.....includes any debt in respect of which a suit or other proceeding is pending before o Civil...Court...the Board.... shall give notice thereof to such Court in the prescribed manner, and thereupon the suit or the proceeding shall the stayed until the Board has either dismissed the application in respect of such debt or made an award thereon.... 2. The contention of the decree-holder is that the debt in the present case not being a decree of a Civil Court is not a debt within the meaning of sec. 34 of the Act. 2. The contention of the decree-holder is that the debt in the present case not being a decree of a Civil Court is not a debt within the meaning of sec. 34 of the Act. The Civil Court, however, is precluded by sec. 20 of the Act from deciding whether a particular debt is a debt within the meaning of the Act or not. By that section the Debt Settlement Board is to decide that matter. Under sec. 34 the Civil Court must proceed on the footing that there is a debt within the meaning of the Act and on that footing must stay the proceedings. If ultimately the Board finds that there was no such debt as contemplated by the Act the application of the debtor will be dismissed, the notice will automatically expire and the execution proceeding will proceed. Unless and until the Debt Settlement Board has decided the question as to whether the decretal debt in the present suit is a debt within the meaning of the Act or not the executing Court is bound to stay the execution proceedings. 3. The result is that this appeal is allowed, the orders of the Courts below are set aside and the execution proceedings are stayed under sec. 34 of the Act. 4. Parties will bear their own costs throughout the litigation. The application is rejected.