ORDER : 1. The petitioner, who is a debtor to the respondent Bank in a sum far above Rs. 1,500 applied for having his debt discharged under Ss. 15 to 18 of the Kerala Agriculturists’ Debt Relief Act, 1958. The court below held that the debt being excluded from the purview of the Act as per S. 2 [c] [xi] thereof the application is not sustainable and dismissed the same. It is against the said order that the Civil Revision Petition has been preferred by the debtor. 2. The learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the word “debt” in its usage in Ss. 15 to 18 of the Act connotes a different meaning than what is given to it in S. 2(c) and that the provisions of Ss. 15 to 18 would make out a “context otherwise” mentioned in the opening words of S. 2 of the Act. Sub-section (1) of S. 15 contemplates a “full settlement of the debts” of an agriculturist; sub-S. 3 requires the petitioner to state that he wants a “fair settlement of his debts” and that he unconditionally leaves all his assets in the control of the Court” (for purposes of such settlement). Under S. 18, the Court; is to settle “the liabilities of the debtor” and to allot and give 1/4 of his assets, subject to a ceiling of Rs.4000/- in value to him free of all liabilities except those specified in S. 18 (a); and the proviso to clause [b] to S. 18 makes it clear that the liabilities thus, cleared include “all debts due to the Government or to any local authority” even though “sums payable to the State or Central Government or to any local authority” are excluded from the definition of debt in S. 2 (c). It is clear therefore that the expression ‘full settlement of his debts’ in clauses [1] of S. 15 comprehends all debts of the agriculturist as understood in common parlance, irrespective of the fact that they do or do not come within the definition in S. 2 [c] of the Act. There is no indication anywhere in the Act that the word “debt” used in the latter portion of clause [1] of S. 15 conveys an import different from what it connotes in the earlier portion of the same clause. There is no indication anywhere in the Act that the word “debt” used in the latter portion of clause [1] of S. 15 conveys an import different from what it connotes in the earlier portion of the same clause. Viewed in this light, the expression ‘who is unable to pay his debts’ must refer to debts of all categories within and without the definition in S. 2 (c) of the Act. In this view I am supported by the ruling of my learned brother Raghavan, J., in Ahmadu v. Kalyani Amma, [1930 KLT. 865]. The learned counsel for the respondent contended that at least one of the debts involved in that case did come within the purview of S. 2 [c] of the Act and that if there be one such debt to attract the application of the Act, S. 15 would be good enough to operate on all the other debts also irrespective of their being outside the definition in S. 2 [c]. This contention does not appeal to me. I do not find any support for the same in any expression in Ss. 15 to 18 of the Act. These sections are meant for a full settlement of all the liabilities of an agriculturist, whether such liability be a debt as defined in the Act or not, and for that the word debt used in these sections has to be understood in its broad grammatical sense to include every liability of an agriculturist. The requirement of one of the debts being within the definition in S. 2 [c] to attract the operation of Ss. 15 to 18 has no basis in the wording of Ss. 15 to 18 of the Act. 3. The order impugned herein is therefore set aside, and the court below is directed to restore the petition to its file and proceed to dispose of it according to law. Costs follow the result. 4. It is reported that in execution of the decree obtained by the respondent against the petitioner the properties of the petitioner are being brought to sale and if the sale comes to be, it may affect the petitioner’s right under his application now being found sustainable in the CRP. This deserves consideration but the petitioner can move for appropriate reliefs in this matter in the court below, in view of the above order in this CRP. Allowed.