Judgment NAZIR AHMAD, J. 1. This is an application by the plaintiff-decree-holder for setting aside the order dated the 1st Sept., 1977 passed by the Execution Munsif, Patna, in Miscellaneous Case No.57 of 1977, wherein she held that the opposite party-judgement-debtor is a resident of the State of Bihar and is a small farmer within the definition of the Bihar Debt Relief Act, 1976 (hereinafter called the said Act), who owns land measuring not more than two acres of irrigated land and can be called a "scheduled debtor" and that being a scheduled debtor he is entitled to discharge of his debts under S.3 of the said Act. She also held that the debts are not recoverable. Accordingly, she allowed the application. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the hand-note (Ext. A) shows , that opposite party Kirpa Narain Mahto borrowed a sum of Rs. 2,200.00 and there was a recital therein to the effect that he carried on agriculture and trade and that the loan was needed for agricultural purpose and also for the development of trade. He has also referred to para 2 of his petition at page 11 where it has been pointed out that the defendant-opposite party accepted in the written statement that the plaintiff was a well-known money lender and that the defendant, who was in need of money for starting a business, went to him and requested him for a loan of Rs. 2,200/-. On the basis of these two documents the learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the opposite party was carrying on business. 3. I have perused the order dated 1-9-1977 of the learned Execution Munsif and I find that after discussing the evidence relating to it she has come to a finding that the opposite party Kirpa Narain Mahto was not primarily a cultivator. She has also not accepted the evidence on behalf of the petitioner that the opposite party was carrying on any business and that even if the intention was to carry on business, unless the opposite party carried on business at the time when execution petition was pending, it cannot be said that he had other source of income. 4. On a perusal of para 11 of the order of the learned Execution Munsif it appears that Ext. 4. On a perusal of para 11 of the order of the learned Execution Munsif it appears that Ext. B/1, which was filed as a rejoinder to the petition of the plaintiff-decree-holder praying for attachment before judgement of the land of the defendant, was proved before her. That rejoinder dated 27-3-1974 was filed by the opposite party in the money suit in question before the Munsif 1st Court, Patna. In Ext. B/1 there was a mention that the judgement-debtor possessed other properties situated in Patna, within Patna Municipal Corporation area bearing holding No.201/18 in Circle No.223 within Malsalami Police Station. The petitioner asserted before the learned Munsif that the judgement-debtor opposite party had more land than 1.35 acres The learned Execution Munsif has held that Ext. B/1 does not show whether holding No. 201/18 in Patna City was an agricultural land or a house and what was its area. She took the view that there was no suggestion to the judgement-debtor that it was an agricultural land. On this basis she has held that Ext. B/1 does not bestow any benefit to the opposite party. 5. However, it has been held in S.K. Ataup Rahman V/s. Budh Mall Agrawal, 1980 BBCJ (HC) 166 that the object of the Act was to give protection to small, poor farmers who were not in a position to payoff their debts on account of their poverty and that for a person to be a small farmer or a marginal farmer within the Act it is necessary that he be dependent upon the agricultural land as farmer and he should not have any other substantial source of income not should be own other substantial properties. 6. Under such circumstances it is necessary to find as to what is the area of holding No.201/18 aforesaid and what is the nature of this property. If it is a house, then rental income will be there, besides agricultural income relating to 1.35 acres of land. 7. Mr. Guneshwar Prasad, learned counsel for the petitioner, is agreeable to produce necessary evidence before the learned Executing Court relating to holding No.201/18 if the matter goes back to it. 8. If it is a house, then rental income will be there, besides agricultural income relating to 1.35 acres of land. 7. Mr. Guneshwar Prasad, learned counsel for the petitioner, is agreeable to produce necessary evidence before the learned Executing Court relating to holding No.201/18 if the matter goes back to it. 8. I, therefore, set aside the order dated 1-9-1977 of the learned Execution Munsif with a direction that she will give an opportunity to the decree-holder to produce necessary evidence relating to holding No.201/18 and she will decide the matter afresh according to law after giving opportunity to both the parties of hearing. 9. In the result, the application is allowed and the matter is sent back to the learned Execution Munsif. There will be no order as to costs. HARI LAL AGRAWAL, J. 10 While agreeing with my learned brother that the matter requires reconsideration as the Court below has not recorded any finding with respect to other property, admittedly owned and possessed by the debtor, which was very vital for applying the provisions of the Act in question, in view of the Bench decision of this Court referred to above by my learned brother, I would add a few words clarifying the position with respect to the nature of debt to which the Act applies, perhaps for which decision L.M. Sharma, J. has referred this case to a Division Bench, in spite of his decision with which I had agreed, in the aforesaid case of Sk. Ataur Rahman (1980 BBCJ (HC) 166). 11. Mr. Guneshwar Prasads argument was that inasmuch as the debt in question was created for carrying on the business, the provision of the Act would have no application. It is not possible to accept this contention as the definition of debt in, sub-sec. (a) of S.2 of the Act is wide and comprehensive enough to include within its fold "all liabilities to a money lender . .. . including any transaction which is in substance a debt, and subsisting on the date of the commencement of this Act whether due or not due". The definition, therefore, was so comprehensive as to include all kinds of debts, irrespective of the nature for which it was incurred and it is not necessary that it should be in regard to the purpose of agriculture or operations connected therewith only. The definition, therefore, was so comprehensive as to include all kinds of debts, irrespective of the nature for which it was incurred and it is not necessary that it should be in regard to the purpose of agriculture or operations connected therewith only. Sec.3 of the Act contemplates an unqualified discharge of an debts of scheduled debtor. Application allowed