JUDGMENT : ( 1. ) THE controversy in this revision relates to the jurisdiction of the Civil Court to entertain and decide a suit involving a prohibited transaction of loan as defined in the Madhya Pradesh Samaj Ke Kamjor vargon Ke Krishi-Bhumi Dharakon Ka Udhar Dene Walon Ke Bhumi Hadapane Sambandhi Kuchakron Se Paritran Tatha Mukti Adhiniyam, 1976. ( 2. ) THE non-applicant-defendant on 29-4-1974 entered into an agreement to sell 3. 89 acres of agricultural land to the applicant-plaintiff for a consideration of Rs. 15,000. The applicant paid Rs. 10,000 on that date. The balance was to be paid at the time of execution and registration of the sale deed by 31-3-1975. Since the non-applicant failed to execute the necessary sale deed, the applicant brought the suit for specific performance of the contract to sell in his favour. The suit was filed on 28-4-1977. Instead of filing a written statement, the non-applicant by an application objected to the jurisdiction of the Civil Court to decide the suit contending that the transaction in suit was a prohibited transaction of loan within the meaning of sub-section (f)of section 2 of the Adhiniyam and, therefore, was hit by provisions of that adhiniyam. He contended that section 14 of the Adhiniyam created an express bar to the Civil Courts jurisdiction to try the suit. This objection was heard and the parties were permitted to lead evidence. By the impugned order, the trial Court found that the relationship of debtor and creditor existed between the parties, the non-applicant is possessed of less than 8 hectares of agricultural land and that the transaction in suit between the parties is a prohibited transaction of loan. Consequently, the trial Court held that it had no jurisdiction to try the suit and has, therefore, returned the plaint for presentation to proper Court. It is this order which has been challenged in this revision. ( 3. ) ORDINARILY a litigant having a grievance of a civil nature has, independently of any statute, a right to institute a suit in some Court or other unless its cognizance is either expressly or impliedly barred. A Civil Court subject to pecuniary and territorial limits must be presumed to have jurisdiction in respect of every civil right unless exclusion of such jurisdiction is expressed or can be necessarily implied. This is what is provided in section 9 of Code of the Civil Procedure. A Civil Court subject to pecuniary and territorial limits must be presumed to have jurisdiction in respect of every civil right unless exclusion of such jurisdiction is expressed or can be necessarily implied. This is what is provided in section 9 of Code of the Civil Procedure. Every presumption should, therefore, be made in favour of the jurisdiction of a Civil Court. It is well-settled that exclusion of jurisdiction of Civil Courts is not to be readily inferred. At the same time, section 9 of the Code recognises the power of the legislature to vest in another tribunal exclusive powers over any given subject-matter and where exclusive jurisdiction is thus created by the legislature, the Civil Court evidently cannot interfere with it, See Gangavva v. Udachappa AIR 1964 Mys. 107 (FB ). One should not, therefore, while interpreting any statute necessarily make an attempt to abridge its operation or cut down or modify its objectives with a view to give effect to the rule of interpretation that the ousting of jurisdiction should not be readily inferred but should be clearly established. The Adhiniyam strikes at prohibited transactions of loan and aims at providing relief to the weaker sections of the people who are holders of agricultural lands. The objective is to rescue the holders of agricultural lands from the clutches of the lenders of money and to save their agricultural lands from the attempts of lenders of money ingeniously designed to grab their lands. The Adhiniyam defines holder of agricultural land in the weaker sections of the people to mean a holder of land used for purposes of agriculture not exceeding eight hectares of unirrigated land or four hectares of irrigated Sand within the State whether as a Bhumiswami or an occupancy tenant or a Government lessee either in any one or all of the capacities together within the meaning of the Code. While lender of money is defined to mean a person advancing loan to a holder of agricultural land, prohibited transaction of loan means a transaction in which lender of money advances loan to a holder of agricultural laud against security of his interest in land, whether at the time of advancing the loan or at any time thereafter during the currency of the loan in different ways including an agreement to sell land with or without delivery of possession. Section 3 of the Adhiniyam creates an overriding effect of its provisions over any other law for the time being in force. Section 4 provides that a holder of agricultural land shall be entitled to relief and protection under the Adhiniyam in respect of prohibited transactions of loan subsisting on the appointed day or entered into thereafter but on or before the date of publication of the Adhiniyam in the Gazette. A holder of agricultural land intending to seek relief and protection under the Adhiniyam to any transaction of loan has to apply to the Sub-Divisional Officer seeking such protection or relief. The Adhiniyam then proceeds to provide a procedure to be followed by any holder of agricultural land desirous of seeking protection in respect of prohibited transaction of loan subsisting on the appointed date, which is 1-1-1971 as per clause (a) of section 2 of the Adhiniyam. If no proceedings are pending in any Court of law in relation to such transaction, section 5 provides that an application should be made by the holder of agricultural land before the Sub-Divisional Officer. On receipt of such application, the Sub-Divisional Officer has to make an enquiry as provided in section 6 and may grant any of the relief in accordance with section 7. Section 6 contemplates an enquiry by the Sub-Divisional Officer on an application presented before him under section 5 by any holder of agricultural land. Section 7 speaks of the reliefs. This section includes a proviso which carves out an exception to the effect that nothing contained therein shall prejudice the right of lender of money to enforce his right to recover the loan advanced by him to the holder of agricultural land under such transaction by due process of law within a period of three months from the the date of final declaration of prohibited transaction of loan void notwithstanding anything contained in the Limitation Act, 1963. Any order passed under section 7 is made appealable under section 8 before the Collector and section 9 attaches finality to the order passed by the Collector in appeal or by the Sub-Divisional Officer if no appeal is filed. Any order passed under section 7 is made appealable under section 8 before the Collector and section 9 attaches finality to the order passed by the Collector in appeal or by the Sub-Divisional Officer if no appeal is filed. If, however, proceedings in respect of such transactions are pending in any Court, the provisions of section 11 are attracted and after the publication of the Adhiniyam in the gazette, that Court shall decide the dispute in accordance with the provisions of the Adhiniyam notwithstanding anything to the contrary in any law for the time being in force. Section 12 then enacts that notwithstanding anything contained in any enactment for the time being in force, no lender of money shall, on and from the date of publication of the Adhiniyam in the Gazette, enter into any prohibited transaction of loan with a holder of agricultural land and any such prohibited transaction of loan shall be absolutely null and void and no Court shall entertain any application or suit to enforce any claim of lender of money arising out of prohibited transaction of loan. Then comes section 14 creating bar of jurisdiction of civil Courts and is as follows : "14. Bar of jurisdiction of civil Courts.- Subject to the provisions of section 11, no civil Court shall have any jurisdiction to settle, decide or deal with any question which is by or under this Act required to be settled, decided or dealt with by the Sub-Divisional Officer or the Collector. " ( 4. ) THE purpose of the Adhiniyam is made manifest by preamble which runs thus: "an Act to better economic condition of holders of agricultural land in the weaker sections of the people by providing further relief from agricultural indebtedness by nullifying the land grabbing designs resorted to in many a form by lenders of money while and after extending credit to them and matters connected therewith. Whereas a holder of agricultural land in the weaker sections of the people is quite often compelled to seek loan from private money-lending agencies to meet his various obligations of urgent nature; and whereas such private agencies seldom, if ever, advance loan to him without security of land, his only wherewithal; and whereas due to ignorance of niceties of law or urgency of financial need or both, he falls an easy prey to them scarcely realising the legal consequences arising out of the documents which he executes or which they get executed from him seemingly by way of security for the loan; and whereas it is necessary to relieve the holders of agricultural land in the weaker sections of the people from such exploitation by nullifying such past transactions of loan as also to put a stop to such transactions. " This preamble and the statutory scheme as analysed above indicate that the adhiniyam is a piece of welfare legislation and while it aims at frustrating all designs of unscrupulous moneylenders cloaked in various kinds of transactions of lands, it also provides for cheaper and quicker remedy to afford reliefs to those aggrieved. In interpreting any provision of this welfare legislation, beneficent rule of construction should be adopted When a particular provision is susceptible to two constructions, the one which promotes the policy of the Act should be preferred. And that sense of the words should be adopted which best harmonises with the context and promotes in the fullest manner the policy and the object of the Legislature. ( 5. ) A reference to the various provisions of the Adhiniyam shows that its field of operation can be divided into two distinct parts: one relating to prohibited transactions of loan subsisting on the appointed day or entered into thereafter but before the date of publication of the Act and the second relating to such transactions brought into existence on and after the date of publication. The transactions falling in the first category can again be put in two groups. In one class may be placed such transactions of loan in respect of which no action or proceeding in any Court of law was taken or is pending. In respect of such transactions, the agriculturist is permitted to invoke the machinery under the Act and obtain relief and protection under it. In one class may be placed such transactions of loan in respect of which no action or proceeding in any Court of law was taken or is pending. In respect of such transactions, the agriculturist is permitted to invoke the machinery under the Act and obtain relief and protection under it. If he so desires, he should move an application to the Sub-Divisional officer in that behalf within the prescribed period. Section 6 permits action suo motu by the Sub-Divisional Officer and for that no period of limitation is prescribed. It is significant that the machinery can be moved only by the debtor and not by the lender of money. The only remedy left to the moneylender after any such prohibited transaction of loan is declared void by the Sub-Divisional Officer is to recover the loan by due process of law within three months of such declaration notwithstanding anything contained in the Limitation Act, 1963. The other kind of cases may be those in respect of which proceedings may be pending in Court of law. Section 11 of the Act requires that such cases shall be decided by the Court in accordance with the provisions of the Adhiniyam meaning thereby that the court shall exercise similar powers and can grant only such reliefs in respect of these pending cases as the Sub-Divisional Officer may in respect of cases instituted before it in respect of transactions subsisting on the appointed date or entered into after but before the publication of Adhiniyam in the official Gazette. Thus the jurisdiction of Court is not taken away in respect of pending cases but the procedure and the relief to be granted is restricted to the provisions contained in sections 6 and 7 of the Adhiniyam. ( 6. ) SECTION 12 of the Adhiniyam prohibits any lender of money to enter into any prohibited transaction of loan after the publication of the Adhiniyam in the Gazette and further declares all such transactions to be absolutely null and void. ( 6. ) SECTION 12 of the Adhiniyam prohibits any lender of money to enter into any prohibited transaction of loan after the publication of the Adhiniyam in the Gazette and further declares all such transactions to be absolutely null and void. Sub-section (2) of section 12 and section 14 of the Adhiniyam, which relate to the Courts jurisdiction to entertain and decide the disputes relating to such transactions are reproduced hereunder: "12 (2) Any prohibited transaction of loan entered into in contravention of the provisions of sub-section (1) shall be absolutely null and void and no Court shall entertain any application or suit to enforce any claim of lender of money arising out of prohibited transaction of loan. " "14. Bar of jurisdiction of Civil Courts - Subject to provisions of section 11, no Civil Court shall have any jurisdiction to settle, decide or deal with any question which is by or under this Act required to be settled, decided or dealt with by the Sub-Divisional Officer or the Collector. " ( 7. ) WHAT section 14 of the Adhiniyam envisages is that if any question has to be settled, decided or dealt with by the Sub-Divisional Officer or the collector under the Adhiniyam, the Civil Court shall not settle, decide or deal with that question. If on a preliminary enquiry under section 6 of the adhiniyam, the Sub-Divisional Officer is satisfied that the transaction in question is a prohibited transaction of loan, then he has to proceed to make further enquiry as required by various clauses of that section. This only means that what the Civil Court cannot do is to settle, decide or deal with such questions as are detailed in various clauses of section 6 of the Adhiniyam if and when such questions are raised in any suit or proceeding before it. Clearly, this does not bar the institution of suit which may involve such questions. What, therefore, appears is that when such questions arise before the Civil Court in any pending suit instituted after the publication of the adhiniyam in the Gazette, it should direct the parties raising such questions to get them settled or decided by the competent authority under the Adhiniyam. Till then the proceedings in the suit must be kept stayed. What, therefore, appears is that when such questions arise before the Civil Court in any pending suit instituted after the publication of the adhiniyam in the Gazette, it should direct the parties raising such questions to get them settled or decided by the competent authority under the Adhiniyam. Till then the proceedings in the suit must be kept stayed. The ultimate decision of the Sub-Divisional Officer or the Collector in appeal shall determine the further progress in the suit or proceeding. If the transaction is declared to be a prohibited transaction of loan, the Civil Court may confine its decision only to the grant of relief of return of the loan advanced in terms of the proviso to section 7. If, however, the finding reached by the competent authority is otherwise, the Civil Court shall further proceed to decide the suit or proceeding ignoring any objection based on the provisions of the adhiniyam. In my opinion, therefore, section 14 does not bar the filing of suit which may involve a prohibited transaction of loan. What is excluded from the jurisdiction of the Civil Court is only the settling, deciding or dealing with any question which is required to be settled, decided or dealt with by the Sub-Divisional Officer or the Collector under the Adhiniyam. In my opinion, therefore, the jurisdiction of the Civil Court is barred only to the extent of investigating if the given transaction is a prohibited transaction of loan and all those questions which are covered by various clauses of section 6. That function is expressly assigned to the Sub-Divisional Officer and he is the only competent authority to adjudicate upon it. ( 8. ) THE difficulty arises on account of sub-section (2) of the section 12 which not only declares the prohibited transaction of loan to be absolutely null and void but also prohibits any Court to entertain any application or suit to enforce any claim of lender of money arising out of prohibited transaction of loan. Plainly read, it would mean that if by a suit or application any claim under a prohibited transaction of loan is sought to be enforced, such suit or application shall not be entertained by the Court. It means that whenever any application or suit involves a claim based on any prohibited transaction of loan, the application or suit must be rejected. It means that whenever any application or suit involves a claim based on any prohibited transaction of loan, the application or suit must be rejected. The use of the word entertain in sub-section (2) of section 12 of the Adhiniyam is significant. As pointed out by a Division Bench of this Court in Khatumal v. Abdul Qadir 1961 MPLJ 587 = air 1961 MP 295 . , the word entertain means to receive and take into consideration. It was pointed out that the plain reading of the expression "no court shall entertain" would mean that no Civil Court shall have jurisdiction to a suit in its inception. Thus, when the application or suit filed before the civil Court itself discloses that the claim laid therein arises out of a prohibited transaction of loan, that application or suit shall not be considered and shall have to be rejected. But once prima facie such application or suit does not disclose that the claim arises out of any prohibited transaction of loan and the Court entertains such application or suit and a question is subsequently raised which is required under the Adhiniyam to be decided by the Sub-Divisional Officer or the Collector, then the matter has to be dealt with under section 14. When sub-section (2) of section 12 is read along with section 14 and the proviso to section 7 of the Adhiniyam, what appears is that the Civil Court shall not enquire into any question relating to prohibited transaction of loan as may be settled, decided or dealt with by the Sub-Divisional Officer and the Civil Court shall not be competent to grant any relief to the lender of money in respect of a claim arising out of a prohibited transaction of loan except the refund of the loan advanced by him to the holder of agricultural land under such transaction. Such an interpretation of these provisions is in accordance with the rule of harmonious construction which requires that so far as possible two provisions in a statute, which may appear to be conflicting to each other, should be interpreted that effect can be given to both and that the construction which renders either of them inoperative and useless should not be adopted except in the last resort. The duty of the Court is to avoid head on clash between two sections of the same Act and whenever it is possible to do so, to construe provisions which appear to conflict so that they harmonise, See Raj Krishna v. Binod AIR 1954 SC 202 . For application of this rule, what is material is the identity of the subject-matter of the conflicting provisions and not the identity of their purpose : See Bengal immunity Co. v. State of Bihar AIR 1955 SC 661 . In my opinion, such a construction would give full effect to the provisions of the Adhiniyam and its underlying objects and at the same time shall be consistent with the rule of interpretation that the jurisdiction of the civil Court should not be readily ousted. ( 9. ) THE conclusion I have reached is that when an application or suit is filed before the civil Court and from the allegations made therein it appears that the claim made arises out of a prohibited transaction of loan, such application or suit shall not be entertained. If it appears from the allegations in the application or suit that the claim does not arise out of any prohibited transaction of loan, it shall be entertained by the civil Court which shall proceed to deal with it. If during the course of proceedings before the civil Court, such questions arise which are to be settled, decided or dealt with by Sub-Divisional Officer or the Collector under the Adhiniyam, the Court shall stay the further proceedings in suit and direct the parties so raising the questions to obtain a decision from the Sub-Divisional Officer in terms of sections 6 and 7 and on receipt of decision by the Sub-Divisional Officer or the Collector, as the case may be, shall proceed to decide the suit in accordance with such decision. ( 10. ) IN the present case, it is the defendant/non-applicant who raised the question that the agreement to sell was a prohibited transaction of loan as defined in the Adhiniyam. The lower Court instead of directing that question to be decided by the Sub-Divisional Officer has reached the conclusion on evidence that the agreement sought to be enforced in the suit is a prohibited transaction of loan and, therefore, hit by the provisions of the adhiniyam. On these findings, the plaint has been returned. The lower Court instead of directing that question to be decided by the Sub-Divisional Officer has reached the conclusion on evidence that the agreement sought to be enforced in the suit is a prohibited transaction of loan and, therefore, hit by the provisions of the adhiniyam. On these findings, the plaint has been returned. But as the plaintiff, who is the person who has parted with money under the transaction and upon the findings reached by the lower Court is a lender of money, cannot approach the Sub-Divisional Officer under the Adhiniyam as section 5 thereof contemplates application only by the holder of agricultural land, the course adopted by the lower Court shall leave the applicant without any remedy although the Adhiniyam does not debar him from claiming return of the amount advanced by him in terms of the proviso to section 7. In my opinion, the course open to the trial Court was to stay further proceedings in suit and to direct the non-applicant to get the matter settled and decided by the Sub-Divisional Officer in terms of sections 6 and 7 of the adhiniyam and to proceed to finally decide the suit after the receipt of those findings. Such a course was followed by this Court in Jawaharlal Chunnilal v. Ramkrishna Malik, 1962 MPLJ 461 where hearing of an appeal on behalf of a public trust, which was unregistered, was stayed and the appellant (plaintiff)was granted time to get the trust registered as a public trust and to tile the registration certificate to avoid the bar created by section 32 of the M. P. Public Trusts Act which runs as under: "31 (1 ). No suit to enforce a right on behalf of a public trust which has not been registered under this Act shall be heard or decided by any court. " ( 11. ) FOR the aforesaid reasons, the revision is allowed and the impugned order is set aside. The non-applicant/defendant is granted time to approach the Sub-Divisional Officer under section 5 of the Adhiniyam and to obtain decision in terms of section ? thereof. On receipt of the findings and decision under the Adhirnyam, the trial Court shall proceed to decide the suit accordingly. There shall be no order as to costs. ( 12. The non-applicant/defendant is granted time to approach the Sub-Divisional Officer under section 5 of the Adhiniyam and to obtain decision in terms of section ? thereof. On receipt of the findings and decision under the Adhirnyam, the trial Court shall proceed to decide the suit accordingly. There shall be no order as to costs. ( 12. ) BEFORE parting with the case, I must record my thanks to Shri Shankerlal Saxena, Government Advocate, who appeared as amicus curiae and rendered valuable assistance to the Court. Revision allowed.