SK ATAUR RAHMAN Vs. BUDH MALL AGARWAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This Civil revision application is directed against the order pased by the trial court rejecting the defendant-petitioner's application for dismissing the suit on the ground that it has abated in accordance with the provision of Sec. 3 (c) of the Bihar Debt Relief Act (hereinafter referred to as "the Act"). The plaintiff-opposite party has filed the suit for a money decree on the allegation that the defendant no. 1 had taken a loan from him. The petitioner filed a petition alleging that he is a "small farme" within the meaning of the term under the Act, as he owns a total area of 0-90 acre land only and the suit cannot proceed against him.

(2.) Clause (c) of Sec. 3(1) of the Act lays down that notwithstanding anything contained in any other law every debt incurred by a scheduled debtor before the commencement of the Act shall be deemed to have been wholly discharged and a suit for recovery of such debt would abate. The terms "Schedule debtor", "small farmer" and "marginal farmer" have been defined respectively in Secs. 2 (b), (c) and (d) in the following terms :

(3.) According to the case of the plaintiff, defendant no. 1 has got a large area of land and is also possessed of 10 bighas of batai lands. He examined as his witness Md. Vaseemuddin who stated that the defendant no. 1 was the owner of 30 bighas of land. The witness is a cousin of the defendant no. 1 and lives in the same house as the defendant no. 1. Besides, the defendant no. 1 admitted in his deposition that he has been working as a teacher in a school and drawing a salary of several hundred rupees. In these circumstances, the court below has held that the defendant no. 1 is not entitled to the benefit of the Debt Relief Act. The defendant no. 1 has now come to this Court in revision.