Research › Search › Judgment

Punjab High Court · body

2000 DIGILAW 663 (PNJ)

Rajbir Singh v. Tej Pal

2000-07-05

R.L.ANAND

body2000
JUDGMENT R.L. Anand, J. - Shri Rajbir Singh and Ishwar Chand alias Ishwar Singh, have filed the present Revision and it has been directed against the order dated 6.3.2000 passed by the Court of Additional Civil Judge (Sr. Division), Kurukshetra, who dismissed the objections of the petitioners by holding that the petitioners-objectors are not the agriculturists nor there is any evidence on the record to prove that they are agriculturists or that they are covered under the provision of Section 2(h) of the Haryana Relief of Agricultural Indebtedness Act, 1989 (hereinafter called "the Act"). 2. Some facts can be noticed in the following manner. Shri Tej Pal son of Karta Ram, filed a money suit for a sum of Rs. 28,750/- against the defendants alleging that the father of the defendants Lala Ram borrowed a sum of Rs. 23,000/- in cash from the plaintiffs to repay instalment of the tractor belonging to him and he also executed a pronote and receipt in favour of the plaintiff. The money was not paid. Hence the suit. 3. The suit was contested by the legal representatives of Shri Lala Ram, and it was pleaded that plaintiff had no locus standi to file the present suit; that the plaintiff was a money lender; that there was no necessity on the part of the deceased to borrow the amount. The defendants took the various other pleas and the Court framed the following 8 issues for the disposal of the case :- 1. Whether the predecessor-in-interest of the defendants late Mr. Lala Ram, had borrowed a sum of Rs. 23,000/- on 28.9.1985 from the plaintiff for payment of price of tractor ? OPP 2. Whether late Mr. Lala Ram executed a valid pronote and receipt in favour of the plaintiff on 28.9.1985 ? OPP 3. Whether late Mr. Lala Ram agreed to pay interest, if so at what rate and what amount ? OPD 4. Whether the suit is not maintainable ? OPD 5. Whether the plaintiff is a money lender and as such a licence is required before filing the suit ? OPD 6. Whether the defendants are not obliged to make the payment of loan raised by their predecessor ? OPD 7. Whether the plaintiff has no cause of action ? OPD 7-A. Whether the plaintiff has got no jurisdiction to entertain the suit ? OPD 8. Relief. OPD 6. Whether the defendants are not obliged to make the payment of loan raised by their predecessor ? OPD 7. Whether the plaintiff has no cause of action ? OPD 7-A. Whether the plaintiff has got no jurisdiction to entertain the suit ? OPD 8. Relief. Finally the suit was decreed on 9.3.1994. There was one issue i.e. Issue No. 7-A, whether the Civil Court has got no jurisdiction to entertain the suit. This issue was framed on the objection taken up by the defendants that they are agriculturists and the loan was advanced for agriculture purpose. Issue No. 7-A was decided against the defendants and in favour of the plaintiff by decreeing the suit on 9.3.1994. 4. After passing of the money decree, the plaintiff filed the execution petition. In the execution, objection was taken by the judgment-debtors that they are agriculturists and their main occupation is agriculture and in view of Section 17 of the Haryana Relief of Agricultural Indebtedness Act, the execution is not maintainable against the J.Ds. Moreover, the decree-holder has no locus-standi to file the present execution and that he has no cause of action. The learned Executing Court for the reasons given in the impugned order dated 6.3.2000 and specially in para Nos. 5 to 10 and 11 of the order dismissed the objections and in this manner the present revision has been filed. 5. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners submitted that in view of Section 17 of the Act, there is a bar in filing the civil suit and according to Section 17 no Civil Court shall entertain any suit, appeal or application for revision to question the validity of any procedure or legality of any order issued under this Act or to recover any debt which is deemed to have been duly discharged under the provisions of this Act or any application to execute a decree passed by the Civil Court against a debtor or any suit for declaration or any suit or application for injunction affecting any proceedings under this Act before the Board. The counsel submitted that as per the provisions of Section 17 of the Act present execution proceedings are not tenable. The counsel submitted that as per the provisions of Section 17 of the Act present execution proceedings are not tenable. He further submitted that since an objection has been taken with regard to the locus standi of the decree-holder to file the execution application, the trial Court ought to have framed an issue and an opportunity should have been afforded to the petitioners to prove that they are the debtors within the meaning of Section 2(h) of the Act and within the meaning of Section 2(g) which defines debt. 6. On the contrary, it was submitted by the counsel for the respondent that the petitioners had taken the same plea before the trial Court and specific issue No. 7-A was framed which has gone against the petitioner, and, therefore, in the light of that issue, this objection is not open to the petitioners in the execution stage. 7. I find merit in the contention raised by the learned counsel for the petitioners. Whether the petitioners fall in the definition of debtor within the meaning of Section 2(h) and whether the amount advanced to Shri Lala Ram becomes a debt within the meaning of Section 2(g), would be a question of fact which can only be proved or disproved if the parties are allowed to lead evidence in this regard. By deciding issue No. 7-A, the trial Court said that the execution had not been filed so far and that the suit is at the trial stage and, therefore, it is not open to the defendants to raise the objection under Section 17 of the Act. In the view of this Court, there is no finding by the trial Court that the petitioners are not the agriculturists so as to get the benefit of Section 2(h). According to Section 2(h) a debtor must be an agriculturist, an agricultural labourer or a rural artisan who owes a debt and debt has been defined in Section 2(g). Thus, this Court is further of the view that the executing Court ought to have framed a specific issue in the light of the objections raised by the petitioners and then to adjudicate the controversy. 8. Faced with this difficulty, the learned counsel for the respondent relies upon a judgment reported as 1994 P.L.J. 194, Krishan Lal v. Punjab National Bank. This cited judgment is beyond the issue. 8. Faced with this difficulty, the learned counsel for the respondent relies upon a judgment reported as 1994 P.L.J. 194, Krishan Lal v. Punjab National Bank. This cited judgment is beyond the issue. As I stated above, an inquiry is required to be made into the matter which has not been done by the Civil Court. 9. In this view of the matter, I allow this revision-petition and set aside the impugned order dated 6.3.2000, directing the Additional Civil Judge (Sr. Division), Kurukshetra to frame a specific issue with regard to whether the petitioners are the debtors and whether the execution can proceed against them or not and then decide the controversy according to law. No order as to costs. 10. Parties through their counsel are directed to appear before the executing Court on 7.8.2000. Copy of the order be sent to the Court concerned for information and compliance. Dasti. Revision allowed.