Bhandari, C.J. - (1.) The short point for decision in the present case is whether Clause (a) of Section (sic) of the Displaced Persons (Debts Adjustment) Act, 1951, imposes a statutory obligation on the Court to stay proceedings brought by a creditor against a displaced debtor even though the appli-cation presented by the debtor under Section 5 did not contain particulars of the debts owed by him to the said creditor. In other words, the question is whether Section 15 has the effect of staying all proceedings brought against a displaced debtor in respect of debts due from him or only the proceedings in respect of debts particulars or which are specified in the schedule attached to the application presented by the said debtor.
(2.) The plaintiffs in the case are the firm Amir Chand Fearey Lal while the defendants are the firm Jagan Nath-Ram Sarup. Both these firms were carrying on business in Khanewal and the plaintiffs advanced certain monies to the defendants in that town. When the country v;as partitioned in August, 1947, both the firms migrated to India. On the 4th April 1950 the plaintiffs brought a suit against the defendants for the recovery of a sum of Rs. 20,000/-. On the 8th December 1932 Ram Sarup, who was admittedly one of the partners of the defendant firm, made an application under Section 5 of the Displaced Persons (Debts Adjustment) Act, 1951, for the adjustment of his debts against the Central Bank of India. The schedule which was attached to this application contained the names of the various creditors of the applicant but did not contain the name of the firm Amin Chand-Pearey Lal. On the 15th January 1953 Jagan Nath and Baikunth Nath, who are said to be the other two partners of the defendant flrm, made an application under Section 15 of the Act of 1951 in which they prayed that the suit brought by the plaintiffs against the defendants on the 4th April 1950 be stayed. On the 7th March 1953 the plaintiff firm applied for the withdrawal of the suit against Ram Sarup, who, as I have stated already, was one of the three partners of the defendant firm. The Court in which the plaintiffs' suit was pending rejected the application for stay on the ground that the debt due to the plaintiff flrm was not mentioned in the schedule attached to the application of Ram Sarup. Jagan Nath and Baikunth Nath are dissatisfied with the order and have come to this Court in revision.
(3.) Sub-section (1) of Section 5 of the Act of 1951 empowers a displaced debtor to make an application for the adjustment of his debts to the Tribunal within the local limits of whose jurisdiction he actually and voluntarily resides, Or carries on business or personally works for gain. Sub-section (2) requires that the application shall be accompanied by certain schedules, among others being "a schedule containing full particulars of all his debts, whether owed jointly or individually, with the names and addresses of his creditors and joint-debtors, if any, so far as they are known to, or can by the exercise of reasonable care and diligence be ascertained by him." Clause (a) of Section 15 is in the following terms: "15. Where a displaced debtor has made an application to the Tribunal under Section 5 or under Sub-section (2) of Section 11, the following consequences shall ensue, namely- (a) all proceedings pending at the date of the said application in any civil Court in respect of any debt to which the displaced debtor is subject (except proceedings by way appeal or review or revision against decrees or orders passed against the displaced debtor) shall be stayed, and the records of all such proceedings other than those relating to the appeals, reviews or revisions as aforesaid shall be transferred to the Tribunal and consolidated.";