Judgment Lalit Mohan Sharma, J. 1. The plaintiff-petitioner filed a small cause court suit for realisation of Rs.615 on basis of a promissory note executed by the defendant. The defendant, inter alia, pleaded that he is a scheduled debtor within the meaning of section 2 (b) of the Bihar Debt Relief Act, 1976 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) and, the suit has, therefore, abated under section 3 (c) of the Act. This question was taken up by the court below and decided in favour of the defendant. The plaintiff has challenged the order by the present application. 2. The court has held that the defendant possesses a total area of 3.235 acres of land rejected the plaintiffs case that the defendant has got some more land. In paragraph 5 of the judgment the court took up the question as to whether the lands belonging to the defendant are irrigated or not and after rejecting the plaintiffs evidence recorded the following finding : - "i therefore find that there is no cogent and satisfactory materials to hold that the lands owned and possessed by the defendant are irrigated lands. " Farther proceeding the court held : - "the defendant has discharged his onus to show that he owned and possessed only 3.235 decimals of lands and from the evidence on records, there is no cogent and sufficient materials to hold that the lands of the defendant are irrigated lands and as such the defendant having 3 acres 23 1/2 decimals of unirrigated lands is a scheduled debtor within the meaning of section 2 (c) of the bihar Debt Relief Act. " 3. The court has clearly placed the onus of proving the irrigated nature of the land on the plaintiff which appear to be illegal. Sec.3 of the Act provides that notwithstanding anything contained in any other law or any contract or other instrument having the force of law every debt incurred by a scheduled debtor before the commencement of the Act including the amount of interest shall be deemed to have been held discharged. Clause (c) of sub-section (1) states as follows : - "all suits and proceedings including appeals, revision, proceeding in execution and attachment), pending on the date of commencement of this Ordinance for the recovery of any such debtor or interest due thereon against a scheduled debtor shall abate. . . . Clause (c) of sub-section (1) states as follows : - "all suits and proceedings including appeals, revision, proceeding in execution and attachment), pending on the date of commencement of this Ordinance for the recovery of any such debtor or interest due thereon against a scheduled debtor shall abate. . . . " The expression "scheduled debtor has been denned in section 2 (b) as referring to a person who is a small farmer ard the expression "small farmer" in turn is defined in section 2 (c) as meaning a farmer who owns lands measuring not more than 2 acres of irrigated lands or 4 acres of unirrigated lands. It is, therefore, clear that a person who desires to take advantage of the benefits of the Act must establish that he is a scheduled debtor and for that purpose it is incumbent that, he proves that all the conditions are satisfied. On his own case the defendant possess more than 2 acres of land and it is, therefore, his duty to positively establish that the lands he owns are unirrigated. The court below has not appreciated this aspect correctly and has committed an error of law it. wrongly placing the burden on the plaintiff which can be corrected by the High Court under section 25 of the Provincial small Cause Courts Act. The impugned order must, therefore, be set aside. 4 In paragraph of the judgment, the court has considered the question as to the area owned and possessed by the defendant and has mentioned that the plaintiff claims that the defendant has got some more land in village Amragari. Subsequently, it has been observed in the impugned order that since the Khatian has not been produced by the plaintiff it became an admitted position al the time of argument that the defendant did not possess more than 3,235 of land. This is clearly an erroneous view. If a party does not produce the best evidence in support of his case the position does not become admitted. The court, therefore, should reconsider this question also. It has been urged by Mr. Sankat Haran Singh appearing for the petitioner that documentary evidence was filed by the plaintiff in the court below on the question of area which has not been taken into account on the ground that the same had been filed late. The court, therefore, should reconsider this question also. It has been urged by Mr. Sankat Haran Singh appearing for the petitioner that documentary evidence was filed by the plaintiff in the court below on the question of area which has not been taken into account on the ground that the same had been filed late. Since the matter is going back on remand it appears desirable that the evidence produced by the plaintiff on the question of area be taken into account and the defendant be given an opportunity to rebut the same by leading any further evidence if he so desires. 5. For the reasons mentioned above, this civil revision application is allowed and the matter is sent back on remand for fresh decision in the light of the observations made above. As there is no appearance on behalf of the opposite-party, there will be no order as to costs.