JUDGMENT : Arun Tandon, J. Heard Sri A.K. Singh advocate, holding brief of Sri Sankatha Rai, on behalf of the petitioner. Dr. G.S.D. Mishra advocate on behalf of the respondent Nos. 3 and 4 as well as learned standing counsel on behalf of respondent Nos. 1 and 2. 2. Shri Daya Shankar Singh the respondent No. 3 filed Original Suit No. 26 of 1973 for the relief of recovery of money advanced by the petitioner on the basis of a pronote of Rs. 150/- against the petitioner. The suit was decreed ex parte on 26th November, 1974. The aforesaid decree was put to auction on 7.4.1978. Petitioner filed objection u/s 47 of the CPC on the ground that petitioner was a farmer and the total holding of the petitioner was less than 1 hectare and annual income the petitioner was less than Rs. 2,400/- and, therefore, the petitioner being a marginal farmer is entitled to the benefits of the U. P. Debt Relief Act, 1977. Section 22C of the said Act, as such, bars the execution of a decree of civil court in relation to the debt of the petitioner. The objection so, filed by the petitioner was rejected by the Munsif vide judgment and order dated 27.11.1990 after recording a finding that the total holding of the petitioner was more than 1 hectare and as such the petitioner was not a marginal farmer rather the petitioner only answered the description of small farmer as contemplated by the provisions of Section 2 (11) of the Debt Relief Act. 3. Feeling aggrieved by the aforesaid order of the learned Munsif, petitioner preferred a revision before the District Judge, Mirzapur, which was numbered as Civil Revision No. 148 of 1980, Ramadin Singh v. Day a Shankar Singh. The revision so filed by the petitioner has been dismissed by the learned District Judge by means of order dated 30th April, 1981. The petitioner has filed this writ petition against the aforesaid two orders. 4. From the finding recorded by the learned Munsif in the impugned order, it is an admitted position that the petitioner has been held to be a small farmer. The learned District Judge failed to appreciate that even in respect of small farmers no decree, to which Chapter IV of the Debt Relief Act applies, can be executed. 4. From the finding recorded by the learned Munsif in the impugned order, it is an admitted position that the petitioner has been held to be a small farmer. The learned District Judge failed to appreciate that even in respect of small farmers no decree, to which Chapter IV of the Debt Relief Act applies, can be executed. The learned District Judge, even after noticing the provisions of the Debt Relief Act as also the fact that the decree was put to execution subsequent to enforcement of U.P. Act No. 4 of 1977, has negatived the plea raised by the petitioner judgment- debtor only in view of the following finding : “This plea has also to be negatived, because there is nothing to show that this decree related to the debt to which the provisions of Chapter IV applied. In other words there is nothing to show that the judgment-debtor was a small farmer.” 5. The said finding of the learned District Judge is patently erroneous and based on non-consideration of the findings recorded by the learned Munsif in his order dated 27.11.1980, where by the objections filed by the petitioner u/s 47 of the C.P.C. were rejected. For ready reference the findings recorded by the learned Munsif in the order dated 27.11.1980 read as follow : ^^vr% fu.khZr _.kh lhekUr d`"kd dh laKk esa ugha vkrk gSA cfYd y?kq d`"kd gS] vr% m-e-l- 4@77 dk ykHk ikus dk vf/kdkjh ugha gS A** 6. In respect of small farmers also the provisions of Chapter IV of the Debt Relief Act are clearly attracted and the decree of a civil court in respect of such person namely small farmer also cannot be executed in view of the bar contained in Section 22 (c) of the Debt Relief Act, which reads as follows : “22 (c)-No decree of a civil court in relation to the debt to which the provisions of this Chapter apply shall be executed.” 7. In view of the aforesaid conclusions arrived at by the learned Munsif in the order dated 27.11.1980, the learned District Judge was not justified in recording a finding that there is nothing to show that the decree related to a debt, to which Chapter IV of the Debt Relief Act applies as there is nothing on record to show that the judgment-debtor was a small farmer. From the order passed by the learned District Judge, it is further not clear as to on what basis he has come to conclusion that the judgment debtor was not a small farmer. No independent findings have been recorded by the learned District Judge in respect of the total land owned by the petitioner or in respect of his income. 8. However, on behalf of the petitioner various facts and pleas have been raised for the purposes of disputing the correctness or otherwise of the findings recorded by the learned Munsif in the impugned order to the effect that the petitioner answers the description of a small farmer and further that he is not covered by the provisions of U. P. Debt Relief Act, 1977. However, the said objections raised by the petitioner for the first time in the present writ petition, cannot be investigated and the said facts are required to be looked into and adjudicated upon by the learned District Judge himself. However, in absence of any material findings being recorded by the learned District Judge, the order dated 30.4.1981 cannot be sustained and is hereby set aside. 9. In view of the aforesaid, the writ petition is allowed. The order dated 30.4.1981, passed in Civil Revision No. 148 of 1980, is hereby set aside and the Civil Revision No. 148 of 1980 is restored to its original number. The matter is remanded to learned District Judge, Mirzapur for decision afresh in accordance with law with a direction that he shall record specific finding with regards to status of the petitioner, i.e., whether he is marginal farmer or small farmer and further whether he is entitled to protection of U. P. Debt Relief Act, 1977 or not. The learned District Judge may pass fresh order after affording opportunity of hearing to the parties strictly in accordance with law, preferably within a period of three months from the date a certified copy of this order is filed before him.