LAWS(J&K)-1973-11-4

QADIR WANI Vs. FATMA BIBI

Decided On November 06, 1973
Qadir Wani Appellant
V/S
Fatma Bibi Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS revision petition is directed against the order dated 25 -5 -1973 passed by the Additional District Judge Srinagar Mr. G R. Kabta refusing to allow an application under section 151 C.P.C. filed by the petitioner before him.

(2.) IT appears that in a suit for rendition of accounts and cancellation of partnership the defendant Qadir Wani pleaded that he was an agriculturist and the suit was therefore triable under the Agriculturists Relief Act. The trial court vide its order dated 28 -8 -61 found that the defendant was an agriculturist and therefore the suit was triable under the Agriculturists Relief Act. The learned Trial Judge accordingly ordered that the plaint be returned to the plaintiff for presenting the same before a court of competent jurisdiction. Against this order of the trial court the plaintiff went up in appeal before the High Court. The matter came up before a Division Bench of this Court and as reported in 1969 K.L J 343 the Division Bench held that the suit was not triable under the Agriculturists Relief Act. The order of the trial court was therefore set aside and the case was sent back to the trial court for holding further proceedings Later on the same question came up before a F. B of this court in Mohammad Abdullah Dar and another Versus Mohammad Akbar reported as 1972 JKLR. 462. The Full Bench answered the question referred to it by stating that the Section 3 of the Agriculturists Relief Act was not confined in its application to suits in which there was a relationship of creditor and debtor between the parties but also extends to suits in which no such relationship exists and yet some money is due from an agriculturist. The section also applies to suits for rendition of accounts based on partnership in which one of the parties was an agriculturist. In that view of the matter the decision reported in 1969 K.L.J 343 was overruled.

(3.) THE learned Additional District Judge has on consideration of an application made before him by