JAGAT NARAYAN, J. - (1.) THESE three revision applications were heard together as the same question of law as to the interpretation of the provisions of the Rajasthan Relief of Agricultural Indebtedness Act, 1957, as amended by the Rajasthan Relief of Agricultural Indebtedness (Amendment) Act, 1960, arises in all of them.
(2.) CIVIL Revision No. 26/62 was filed by the creditor against an order of the executing court staying the execution proceedings under sec. 6 (3) of the Act. The contention on behalf of the creditor decree-holder was that the only proceedings contemplated under sec. 5 are proceedings in a suit and insolvency proceedings and that execution proceedings cannot be stayed under sec. 6 (3) of the Act upon the admission of an application under sec. 6 (1 ). This matter came up for consideration before a Division Bench of this Court in Karansee vs. Son Singh (1 ). It was held that the scope of an application under sec. 6 (1) for determination of debts, having regard to the definition of the term "debt" must be considered wide enough to include decretal debts as well. Execution proceedings were therefore rightly stayed under sec. 6 (3 ). During the pendency of the revision application a direction was sent to the Debt Relief Court to decide the question whether or not Bastichand respondent was an agriculturist. That court has since held that he is not an agriculturist within the meaning of the Act. The question which arises is whether the executing court is entitled to resume the execution proceedings or a fresh execution application has to be filed. It may be mentioned here that after the execution proceedings had been stayed by the executing court under sec. 6 (3) of the Act as it stood before its amendment, the amended Act came into force and the proceedings were abated under sec. 5 (1 ). Civil Revision No. 97/62 has also been filed by a creditor who had instituted a suit for the recovery of money on the basis of a pronote against the debtor. During the pendency of this suit the debtor filed an application before the Debt Relief Court under sec. 6 (1 ). On receiving intimation about it the trial court passed an order abating the suit and dismissing it. The contention on behalf of the creditor is that the court was not justified in passing the order of dismissal as abatement does not amount to dismissal. Civil Revision No. 235/63 has been filed by the debtor. A suit was filed against him in the court of Civil Judge, Ajmer for the recovery of a sum of Rs. 4,100/- on 7. 10. 61. Bonds worth Rs. 2452/- lying in his name with the Jagir Commissioner were attached before judgment. The defendant filed an application under sec. 6 (1) before the Debt Relief Court which was admitted and notice was sent to the civil court. On receipt of this notice the learned Civil Judge passed an order abating the suit under sec. 5 (1) of the amended Act. An application was then made on behalf of the debtor stating that as the suit had abated the attachment of the bonds had ceased to subsist and praying that an order may be made for their return to him. The learned Civil Judge was of the opinion that abatement under sec. 5 (1) was different from abatement under Order 22 C. P. C. and that proceedings abated under sec. 5 of the Act could be resumed if the application under sec. 6 (1) is rejected. The contention on behalf of the debtor is that proceedings which have once abated cannot be resumed. In order of understand the contention put forward on behalf of the creditor it is necessary to notice some legislative changes which have taken place in the Act as a result of the amendment. The relevant sections for the purpose of the present cases are secs. 5, 6, and 21. Before the Rajasthan Relief of Agricultural Indebtedness (Amendment) Act, 1960, they ran as follows: - Sec. 5 "stay of proceedings - (1) When a plaint is presented to a court of civil jurisdiction against a debtor who is an agriculturist or when a petition is made for the adjudication of such debtor as an insolvent, such debtor may at any time before the issues are settled, or, in a suit before a Court of Small Causes, before evidence is recorded, or, in insolvency proceedings, before the order of adjudication is passed, apply to the court to stay proceedings in order to enable him to file an application under sec. 6 before a Debt Relief Court and the court shall, unless, for reasons to be recorded in writing, is of opinion that such application is prima facie not admissible, stay proceedings for a period not exceeding ninety days ; Provided that, if any such plaint or petition has been presented to or made before, and shall have been pending at, the commencement of, this Act, an application for stay of proceedings under this section may be made by an agriculturist debtor within six months of such commencement. (2) Every such application shall contain the following particulars and shall be signed and verified in accordance with O. VI, r. 15 of the First Schedule to the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (Central Act V of 1908): - (a) a statement that the debtor is an agriculturist ; (b) the place where he normally resides ; (c) a statement of all claims outstanding against him, including those referred to in sec. 4 as nearly as may be ascertainable and the names and addresses of his creditors ; (d) a statement of all his property including claims due to him together with a specification of the value of such property and the place or places at which any such property is to be found ; (e) such other particulars as may be prescribed. (3) If a debtor fails to apply to a Debt Relief Court within the period specified in the order made under sub-sec. (1), the suit or insolvency proceedings, as the case may be, shall resume and the debtor shall not be entitled to apply thereafter for stay of the same or to file an application under sub-sec. (1) of sec. 6. " Sec. 6. "application by agriculturist to Debt Relief Court.- (1) Any debtor who is an agriculturist may file an application before the Debt Relief Court having jurisdiction, praying for the determination of his debts. Such application shall contain the particulars stated in sub-sec. (2) of sec. 5 (2) An application under sub-sec. (1) shall be made to the Debt Relief Court having jurisdiction in the area in which the debtor ordinarily resides or earns his livelihood. (3) When an application made under sub-sec. (1) is admitted and when notice of such admission is given to the court concerned, any proceedings against the debtor for the recovery of debts or for adjudging him an insolvent, pending before any court referred to in sub-sec. (1) of sec. 5, shall be stayed. If the application is rejected, the debtor shall not be entitled to file another application in any Debt Relief Court and any proceeding, so stayed, shall be resumed". Sec. 21. "bar against jurisdiction of courts in certain matters - (1) Subject to the provisions of secs. 17 to 19, the jurisdiction of the civil courts and the insolvency courts shall be barred in respect of - (a) any matter pending before a Debt Relief court ; (b) the claim for any debt which has been discharged or deemed to have been discharged under sec. 8 ; (c) the recovery of any debt, the recovery of which is included in any scheme under sub-sec. (1) of sec. 11 for the time being in force and any order of a Debt Relief court under sub-secs. (2) and (3) of that section or u/sec. 20, and (d) any order of a Collector under sec. 13. (2) Nothing herein contained shall prevent a court which has stayed proceedings under the provisions of this Act from resuming them and passing such orders in regard to them as are not inconsistent with this Act. " Sec. 5 laid down that an application for stay of proceedings under sub-sec. (1) could only be made in a suit before the settlement of issues and in an insolvency proceeding before the order of adjudication was passed. Sec. 6 however did not contain any restriction as was mentioned in sec. 5 (1 ). An application could be made to the Debt Relief Court under sec. 6 (1) at any time by a debtor for the determination of his debts. Sec. 21 however provided that the jurisdiction of the civil courts shall be barred in respect of any matter pending before a Debt Relief Court. The result of this provision was that even if no application for stay was made under sec. 5 (1) the proceedings in the Civil Court were automatically stayed by the operation of the bar under sec. 21 (1 ). All proceedings before the civil court after the filing and the admission of an application under sec. 6 (1) were null and void so long as that application remained pending. On the rejection of the application under sec. 6 the proceedings in the civil court were to be resumed as provided under sec. 21 (2 ). It will be noticed that even if there had been no provision in the Act for the resumption of the proceedings they would have been resumed since there was no bar to their being so resumed. For all that the Act provided under secs. 5 and 6 was for the stay of the proceedings in the civil court during the pendency of an application before a Debt Relief Court. After amendment secs. 5 and 6 stand as follows: - Sec, 5. "abatement or stay of suit or insolvency petition - (1) Whenever a suit or an insolvency petition against a debtor shall have been brought or made and pending in a competent court and such debtor or the person who brought or made such suit or petition applies to such court in this behalf, the court shall - (i) abate such suit or petition if it is satisfied on affidavit or otherwise that an application to the Debt Relief Court under sec. 6 or sec. 6-A has been made and admitted and is pending, or (ii) stay proceedings in such suit or application if it is satisfied as aforesaid that the defendant or the opposite party, as the case may be, is a debtor within the meaning of this Act : Provided that, in the case of an application for stay under cl. (ii), the court shall fix a period not exceeding ninety days, within which the application to the Debt Relief Court shall be made. (2) If any such suit or petition as is referred to in sub-sec. (1) shall have been pending - (i) against a member of a Scheduled caste or a Schedule tribe, at the date of the applicability of this Act to such castes or tribes appointed under sec. 2-A, and (ii) in other cases at the date of the commencement of this Act. an application for stay of proceeding under sub-sec. (1) may be made within six months of the date of such applicability or such commencement, as the case may be. " Sec. 6 "application to Debt Relief Court - (1) Any debtor, who is liable for debts individually or jointly with another person, may file an application before the Debt Relief Court having jurisdiction in the area in which he ordinarily resides or earns his livelihood praying for the determination of his debts. (2) Such an application, praying for the determination of the debts outstanding against a debtor, may also be filed by his creditor or his surety, whether such debtor is liable for such debts individually or jointly with another person. (3) Every application under sub-sec. (1) or sub-sec. (2) shall be signed and verified in accordance with O. VI, r. 15, of the First Schedule to the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (Central Act V of 1908) and shall contain the following particulars namely : - (a) a statement that the debtor is an agriculturist or a member of a scheduled caste or a Scheduled tribe. (b) the place where he normally resides. (c) a statement of all debts outstanding against him, including those referred to in sec. 4, as nearly as may be ascertainable and the names and addresses of his creditors. (d) a statement of all his property, including claims due to him, together with a specification of the value of his property and the place or places at which any such property is to be found, and (e) such other particulars as may be prescribed. (4) In cases covered by cl. (ii) of sub-sec. (1) of sec. 5, an application under sub-sec. (1) or sub-sec. (2) of this section, as the case may be shall be filed within the period fixed under the proviso to sub-sec. (1) of sec. 5. (5) All applications pending before Debt Relief Courts at the commencement of the Rajasthan Relief of Agricultural Indebtedness (Amendment) Ordinance, 1961 (Ordinance No. 7 of 1961) shall continue and be deemed to have been presented under this section. (6) The suit or insolvency petition in which proceeding may have been stayed under cl. (ii) of sub-sec. (1) of sec. 5 shall abate - (i) if no such application as is referred to in sub-sec. (4) is filed, or (ii) if such an application is admitted and notice of such admission has been received by the court concerned. (7) If such an application is rejected, the debtor shall not be entitled to file another application in any Debt Relief Court and any proceedings stayed under sub-sec. (1) of sec. 5 shall be resumed. " It will be noticed that under the amendment Act the proceedings in the Civil Court abate as soon as an application under sees. 6 (1) has been made and is admitted. Sec. 21 (2) has not been amended so as to provide for the resumption of proceedings which have abated under the Act on the dismissal of the application by the Debt Relief Court. Nor is there any provision in the Act permitting of the proceedings. Now the dictionary meaning of "abatement" is "to put an end to. " It is in this sense that this expression has been used in Order 22 of the Code of Civil Procedure. The contention on behalf of the creditors is that in the Act this expression has not been used in the sense in which it has been used in the Code of Civil Procedure, but that all that it means is "automatic stay under the operation of the statute for an indefinite period" and has been used in contra-distinction to stay for a specified period which is granted under sec. 5 (i) (ii ). It is contended that if abatement under the Act is taken to mean the same thing as it means under Order 22 C. P. C. then a great hardship would be caused to the creditors inasmuch as after the dismissal of the application in the Debt Relief Court they will be left without any remedy as their suits will become timebarred in most cases. This does not appear to be correct. Sec. 22 of the Act provides for the exclusion of the period during which proceedings are pending in the Debt Relief Court. The time during which the proceedings have remained pending in the civil court before the filing of the application under sec. 6 of the Act can be excluded under sec. 14 of the Limitation Act, relevant portion of which runs as follows : - "in computing the period of limitation prescribed for any suit, the time during which the plaintiff has been prosecuting with due diligence another civil proceeding, whether in a Court of first instance. . . . . . . . . . . . against the defendant, shall be excluded, where the proceeding is founded upon the same cause of action and is prosecuted in good faith in a Court which, from defect of jurisdiction, or other cause of a like nature, is unable to entertain it. " The expression "to entertain" is generally used in the sense of entertaining it in the first instance'. But it has been held in numerous decisions that the provisions of sec. 14 of the Limitation Act should be construed liberally. In my opinion a creditor whose suit abates on account of an application to the Debt Relief Court, which is subsequently rejected, is entitled to the exclusion of the time from the institution of the suit till the abatement of it under sec. 14. Although the court has initially jurisdiction in the matter, it ceases to exercise jurisdiction u/sec. 21 (1) of the Act the moment an application under sec. 6 is admitted by the Debt Relief Court and the civil court is unable to proceed with the suit. That is a cause of like nature within the meaning of sec 14 of the Limitation Act. It will thus be seen that there is no strong reason to depart from the ordinary meaning of the expression "abatement" in interpreting the provisions of the Act. Moreover the original Act provided for the stay of proceedings on the admission of an application by the Debt Relief Court. This provision was deliberately altered by the Legislature and instead of the expression "stay" it inserted the expression "abatement". That shows that different expression was used by the Legislature deliberately. It must have been used in a different sense from that indicated by the expression "stay".
(3.) I am accordingly of the opinion that the expression "abatement as used in the Act means the same thing as it means u/o. 22 of the Code of Civil Procedure. In Civil Revision 26/62 the execution proceedings filed by the creditor which had abated cannot be resumed by the executing court. A fresh execution application has to be filed by the decree-holder. He will be entitled to the exclusion of the periods from the time of the institution of the execution proceedings to the time of the abatement u/sec. 14 Limitation Act and thereafter upto the date of the dismissal of the application u/sec. 6 by the Debt Relief Court u/sec. 22 of the Act. In Civil Revision No. 97/62 the suit has abated and the proceedings cannot be resumed on the rejection of the application filed in the Debt Relief Court. A fresh suit can however be filed on the same cause of action by the creditor and he would be entitled to exclude the period from the date of the institution of the last suit to the date of the dismissal of the application by the Debt Relief Court. The court was not justified in passing an order of dismissal. The order it has passed will be treated as one of abatement. In Civil Revision No. 235/63 the suit has abated and the attachment before judgment has come to an end. The trial court should order the release of the bonds. The revision applications are accordingly decided as indicated above. In the circumstances of the case, I direct that parties shall bear their own costs of these revision applications. . ;