R.L.ANAND, J. - (1.) 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. 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. 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.
(3.) 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.;