JUDGMENT : D.P. Mohapatra, J. - The short question that arises for consideration in this revision petition relates to correctness of the order passed by the Munsif Kendrapara, holding that the liability of the opposite party under the decree in Execution Case No. 12 of 1981 is to be taken to have been wiped out under the provisions of the Orissa Debt Relief Act, 1980 (for short the ?Act?). 2. The gist of the facts relevant for the present purpose is that the Petitioner filed the suit against the opposite party for realisation of the mortgaged dues of Rs. 602/- with interest, cost etc.. The suit was decreed by the Court and the said decree is under execution in the Execution Case noticed above. In the said case the opposite party filed an application on 11th May, 1984 praying for an order dismissing the execution case in view of the provisions u/s 3 of the Act. It was asserted in the application that the applicant was a small farmer holding agricultural land of Ac.0.87 dec. and further that agriculture was his principal source of income. The Petitioner in his objection to the said application merely challenged maintainability of the application on the ground that an application filed earlier by the judgment-debtor had been dismissed by the Court. He did not refute the aforesaid assertion of the opposite party in his application. The executing Court by the impugned order accepted the application filed by the judgment-debtor and exempted him from payment of the decretal dues covered under the execution petition. 3. Sri B. Patnaik, learned Counsel for the Petitioner, challenged the impugned order mainly on the ground that one of conditions precedent for applicability of Section 3 of the Act that the amount sought to be realised is a ?debt? as defined under the Act, has not been found in this case and therefore the order is not sustainable. There is sufficient force in the contention raised by the learned Counsel. 4. Section 2 (e) of [he Act defines ?debt? to mean ?all liabilities to money-lender in cash of kind, secured or unsecured, payable under a decree or order or a Civil Court or otherwise 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 term ?money-lender? to mean ?all liabilities to money-lender in cash of kind, secured or unsecured, payable under a decree or order or a Civil Court or otherwise 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 term ?money-lender? is defined u/s 2 (f) of the Act to mean? a money tender as defined in the Orissa Moneylenders Act, 3 of the 1939", Section 3 which deals with discharge of debt by Scheduled debtors and the consequence of such discharge provides under Clause 3 (1) (b) that no civil Court shall entertain any suit or proceeding against a scheduled debtor for the recovery of such debt of partition thereof or any interest due thereon. 5. From the aforesaid provision it is manifest that in order to get the benefit of Section 3 (1) (b) under which the judgment-debtor filed the application it is necessary for the Court to come to a conclusion that the amount sought to be realised is ?debt? as defined under the Act and ?debt? means Hall liabilities to a money-lender as contemplated under Orissa Money Lenders Act?. Neither in the application filed by the opposite party was it asserted that the decree-holder being a money-lenders the amount under execution satisfies the requirement of the definition of ?debt? under the Act, nor has this point been considered by the executing Court, as the impugned order indicates. In the absence of consideration of this question, which in my view is sine qua non for applicability of Section 3 d the Act the order cannot be sustained. 6. The learned Counsel for the Petitioner also challenged the finding of the Court below that the opposite party was a small farmer as defined u/s 2 (i) of the Act. On perusal of the impugned order, I find that the executing Court rightly came to the above conclusion, particularly in the absence of any denial by the Petitioner on the assertion in this regard made by the opposite party in his application, that he was a small farmer and that agriculture was him principal source of income. 7. On the discussions in the foregoing paragraphs, the revision petition is allowed? 7. On the discussions in the foregoing paragraphs, the revision petition is allowed? the impugned order is set aside and the executing Court is directed to enquire into the question whether the amount under execution comes within the purview of ?debt? as defined u/s 2 (e) of the Act and dispose of the matter in accordance with Jaw. Both the parties will bear their respective costs of this proceeding. Final Result : Allowed