JUDGMENT By this petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India the petitioner who admittedly is a money lender has challenged the order of the Sub- Divisional Officer/Debt Relief Court, Hoshangabad, whereby the respondent No.1 whose gold and silver ornaments were pledged with the petitioner for a loan consideration, was held to be a 'Marginal Farmer' as defined in section 2 (g) of the M.P. Gramin Rin Vimukti Tatha Rin Sthagan Adhiniyam, 1975 (for short the 'Act') and, therefore, as a consequence which ensued on the commencement of the Act the loan was deemed to be wholly discharged in view of section 4 of the Act. The contention of the petitioner is that there is no finding on the admission made in the statement of the respondent No.3, which clearly shows that respondent No.3 was not a 'Marginal Farmer'. Beside the petitioner instituted a Civil Suit against the respondent No. 3 and her husband (Civil Suit No. 14-B/81) in the Court of Additional Civil Judge, Class-II, Hoshangabad wherien for want of this plea the issue relating to the 'Marginal Farmer' was decided in negative and a decree dt. 27.1.1982 for a consideration of Rs. 2,500/- was passed, therefore, the order of the S.D.O., and that of the Collector in appeal deserve to be quashed. On the other hand, learned Govt. Advocate, submitted that after the commencement of the Act, civil suit or any proceedings against a debtor specified in clause (a) for the recovery of his debt is clearly barred, as after appreciation of evidence the respondent No.3 was held to be a 'Marginal Farmer', therefore, the two Courts rightly held the debt to be discharged. After hearing counsel, I am of the opinion that the Sub-Divisional Officer and the Collector in appeal has recorded a categorical finding that the respondent No.3 falls within the definition of 'Marginal Farmer' and to prove contrary the petitioner has not placed any material nor led any evidence that finding is a finding of fact, hence, no interference can be made under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. As regards the decree of the Civil Court, needless to say that the said decree is without jurisdiction in view of section 4 of the Act which deals with consequences to ensue on commencement of Act. As regards the decree of the Civil Court, needless to say that the said decree is without jurisdiction in view of section 4 of the Act which deals with consequences to ensue on commencement of Act. Clause (b) of section 4 lays down that no Civil Court having jurisdiction shall entertain any suit or proceedings against a debtor specified in clause (a) for the recovery of his debt; and in clause (a) of section 4 one of the debtor specified is a 'Marginal Farmer', therefore, on commencement of the Act the loan so advanced by the petitioner shall be deemed to be wholly discharged. Besides, section 8 has been inserted by the Amendment Act known as M.P. Gramin Rin Vimjkti Tatha Rin Sthagan (Dwitiya Sanshodhan) Adhiniyam, 1976 (Act No. 54 of 1976) which clearly bars the jurisdiction of the Civil Court, which lays down that, no, Civil Court shall have any jurisdiction to settle, decide ordeal with any question in respect of debt to which provisions of this Act apply. Therefore, as the respondent has been held to be a 'Marginal Farmer and the provisions of the Act apply, in the opinion of this Court the decree passed by the Civil Court is ineffective as is without jurisdiction. In the result the petition has no merit and is dismissed with no order as to costs. Security amount, if any, be refunded to the petitioner.