Decided on July 22,1960

GOKUL Appellant
RAM VILAS Respondents


- (1.)THIS is a revision application by an agriculturist defendant against an order of the Civil Judge Chittorgarh refusing to stay proceedings in the civil suit pending before him under sec. 6 of the Rajasthan Relief of Agricultural Indebtedness Act, 1957 (hereinafter referred to as the Act ).
(2.)THE suit was instituted in the court of the Civil Judge on 24. 5. 59. Issues were framed on 6. 8. 59. THE evidence of the plaintiff had been recorded and the evidence of the defendant was to be recorded on 17. 12. 59, when intimation was received from the Debt Relief Court under sec. 6 (3) of the Act intimating that be had filed an application under sub-sec. (1) of sec. 6 before it. When this intimation was received by the learned Civil Judge the defendant prayed that further proceedings in the civil suit should be stayed as provided in sec. 6 (3 ). THE learned Civil Judge however refused to stay the proceedings on the ground that they could only be stayed if an application had been made before issues had been framed.
Sec. 5 of the Act provides for stay of proceedings by the civil court on an application made by the defendant to it, before an application under sec. 6 of the Debt Relief Act has been filed. Sec. 6 provides for stay of proceedings by the civil court after an application under sec. 6 (1) has been filed and intimation about it is received by the civil court from the Debt Relief Court. These two sections thus provide for two different contingencies. There is no conflict in the provisions of these two sections. The phrase "proceedings against the debtor for the recovery of debts;' is, wide enough to cover a suit, an appeal, a revision proceedings arising out of the suit! If stay is sought by an agriculturist defendant before instituting an application in the Debt Relief Court sec. 5 is applicable and the application must be made before issues are settled. But as soon as an application is filed under sec. 6 of the Debt Relief Act and that court sends an intimation about it to the civil court, the civil court is bound to stay proceedings under sec. 6 (3) at whatever stage they might be.

I accordingly hold that the learned civil Judge erred in not staying proceedings in the suit which was pending before him. I therefore allow the application, set aside the order of the learned Civil Judge dated 2. 4. 60 and direct that further proceedings in the suit shall remain stayed. In the circumstances of the case I direct that parties shall bear their own costs. .


Click here to view full judgement.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.