RAJESH BALIA, J. ( 1 ) RESPONDENT No. 1 had filed a suit against the petitioners jointly for recovery of a sum due from the petitioners in the Court of 9th Jt. Civil Judge (J. D.), Vadodara which was registered as Reg. Civil Suit No. 1364 of 1980. ( 2 ) THE petitioner No. 1 moved an application stating that defendant No. 2 (petitioner No. 2 in this petition) has approached the Debt Settlement Officer under the Gujarat Rural Debtors Relief Act, 1976 and the Debt Settlement Officer passed the order in favour of defendant No. 2 on 1-9-1982 and, therefore, the suit may be dismissed having abated. ( 3 ) THE Court by its order dated 10-1-1983 rejected that application and ordered the suit to proceed further on mertis since Debt Settlement Officer rejected application of defendant No. 1 on 5-1-1981 while application of defendant No. 2 relating to the amount of Rs. 2,800. 00 was allowed on 1-9-1982 and said debt was discharged. As the application of defendant No. 1 under the Act of 1976 was rejected by Debt Settlement Officer himself, no occasion arose for the Court to entertain his application for dismissing the suit as having been abated. In this connection, It may be appropriate to refer to the provisions of Sec. 11 (2) Proviso of the Act which clearly postulates that whereas the suit is against the debtor and other person is not a debtor, the bar against the civil proceedings in a Civil Court does not apply to the continuance of such suit or application or other proceedings in so far as it relates to such other person. The term "debtor" in the context of sec. 11 of the Act means a debtor whose debt falls within the category covered by the Act and not any other debtor. A person who is not covered by the Act, debt due from him also does not come within the purview of "debt" covered under the act. Apparently when the application of defendant-petitioner No. 1 was rejected by the Debt Settlement Officer, he was not a debtor within the meaning of the Act nor debt owed by him to the plaintiff can be considered to be a debt to be dealt with by the Debt Settlement Officer under the Act. Therefore, so far as defendant no. Apparently when the application of defendant-petitioner No. 1 was rejected by the Debt Settlement Officer, he was not a debtor within the meaning of the Act nor debt owed by him to the plaintiff can be considered to be a debt to be dealt with by the Debt Settlement Officer under the Act. Therefore, so far as defendant no. 1 is concerned, there is no error in exercise of the jurisdiction for continuing with the suit by the learned Civil Judge. ( 4 ) SO far as defendant No. 2 is concerned, it is stated by the learned Counsel for the petitioner that the debt due to the plaintiff from him has been exempted from payment under the provisions of the Act of 1976 by the Debt Settlement officer which has been affirmed in appeal and, therefore, at least the suit against defendant No. 2 cannot proceed. ( 5 ) FROM the order attached to the petition, it does not appear that exoneration from payment of debt amount of Rs. 2,800 granted to the defendant No. 2 relates to the debt which is subject-matter of the suit. It will be open for defendant No. 2 to move appropriate application before the Trial Court pointing out necessary and material facts showing identity of the debt exonerated in his favour - and the debt subject-matter of the suit in question and on such application being made, the court shall decide that application in accordance with law. If defendant No. 2 is able to establish the identity of the suit dealt with under the Act of 1976, Civil court will have no jurisdiction to proceed against defendant No. 2 though as noticed above, the suit can proceed against defendant No. 1 in view of the provisions of Sec. 11 (2) of the Act of 1976. ( 6 ) IT may be stated that before the jurisdiction of a civil Court to try the suit for recovery of debt is ousted under Sec. 11 of the Act, it has to be decided whether the debt concerned is covered by the provisions of the Act and whether the provisions of the Act applies or not. As this is a jurisdictional fact, the Civil Court has necessarily to decide that question which it must decide before proceeding further with the case wherein this issue is raised. As this is a jurisdictional fact, the Civil Court has necessarily to decide that question which it must decide before proceeding further with the case wherein this issue is raised. I am fortified in my view by the view taken by the Full Bench in its decision in the case of Taraben Ramanlal Modi v. Bai Kamla, Wd/o Jashbhai Shankarbhai and Ors. , (1980) XXI GLR 335, wherein the Full Bench of this Court has observed as under (at page No. 349 para 26) :-"on consideration of all these aspects, it appears to us that the jurisdiction of the civil Court has been conditionally ousted by Sec. 11. In other words, it is ousted only if the provisions of the said Act apply to a case before it or if a judgment-debtor is a "debtor". In a case of conditional ouster of its jurisdiction, the Civil Court has, in our opinion, jurisdiction to decide whether the condition is fulfilled and whether its jurisdcition has been ousted. That is the inherent power of every Civil Court. For that purpose, the Civil Court cannot look at Sec. 12 and await the decision of the Debt Settlement Officer. It has got to look at both Secs. 11 and 12. Therefore, when a comprehensive look is cast at Secs. 11 and 12, no doubt is left in our minds that the Civil Court has under Sec. 11 jurisdiction to decide whether the condition which ousts its jurisdiction exists or not. If the condition exist, it has no jurisdiction. If the condition does not exist, it has jurisdiction to proceed with the suit or execution proceedings pending before it. (Para 26) Accordingly, petition fails and Rule is discharged with aforesaid observations. Interim relief, if any, stands vacated. No order as to costs. .