JAGAT NARAYAN, J. - (1.) THIS is a revision application by the plaintiff against an order of the Civil judge, Sojat, abating his suit for specific performance of a contract of sale of immovable property under sec. 6 (3) of the Rajasthan Relief of Agricultural Indebtedness Act, 1957.
(2.) THE allegation on which the suit has been brought are these. THE defendant owed money to the plaintiff. A settlement of account took place between the parties on 28-3-61. A sum of Rs. 12,616-4-6 was found due against the defendant as result of this settlement of accounts. THE defendant agreed to sell a house to the plaintiff for Rs. 2000/ -. Accordingly credit for this sum was given to the defendant. A sum of Rs. 1782-4-6 was relinquished and a sum of Rs. 10934/- remained to be paid. The plaintiff instituted the present suit for specific performance of the contract of sale as the defendant did not execute a sale-deed of the house in his favour. After the institution of the present suit Kaney Singh filed an application under sec. 6 of the Rajasthan Relief of Agricultural Indebtedness Act, 1957. This application was admitted by the Debt Relief Court and intimation was sent to the court of Civil Judge who passed an order abating the suit for specific performance which was pending in his court. Against the order of abatement the plaintiff preferred an appeal to the District Judge Pali who dismissed it on the ground that no appeal lay to him. The present revision application was then filed. A preliminary objection has been taken on behalf of the defendant that the order of the learned District Judge holding that no appeal lay to him is erroneous. It is contended that it was held in Karan See Vs. Bastichand (1) that abatement under the Rajasthan Relief of Agricultural Indebtedness Act, 1957 is similar to abatement under O. 22, C. P. C. and as such the order amounts to a decree. Reliance is placed on the following decisions : Purushottamdas Vs. Devkaran Kesheoji (2), Brij Jivan Lal Vs. Shiamlal (3), Barju Biswal Vs. Kunja Behari (4), Niranjan Nath Vs. Afzal Hussain (5), Raghbir Saran Vs. Mt. Sohan Debi (6) and Suppu Nayakan Vs. Perumal (7 ). I have carefully examined these decisions. As was pointed out in Brij Jivanlal Vs. Shiamlal (3) in determining whether an order of abatement is open to appeal a distinction should be drawn between those cases of abatement where it is due to the failure of the heirs being brought on record within the period allowed by law or due to the court deciding that a particular applicant is not the legal representative, and those cases where the abatement is due to the court deciding that the right to sue does not survive. In the latter class of cases there is a decree meaning thereby a formal adjudication which conclusively determines the rights of the parties with regard to all or any of the matters in controversy in the suit. So far as the abatement under the Rajasthan Relief of Agricultural Indebtedness Act, 1957 is concerned it does not conclusively determine the rights of the parties with regard to all or any of the matters in controversy in the suit. For as was held in Karan See Vs. Basticband (l) a fresh suit on the same cause of action will lie after the termination of the proceedings before the Debt Relief Court. The preliminary objection has therefore no force. Coming to the merits of the case all transactions relating to the loan during the 12 years preceding the last transaction or the first day of 1952, whichever is earlier, are to be reopened. But other transactions which are not transactions relating to the loan cannot be reopened. Now so far as the agreement to sell is concerned it has nothing to do with the transaction of loan. So far as the loan transaction is concerned a credit for Rs. 2000/- was given to the defendant in that account. The agreement to sell is thus independent of the transaction of loan and is not affected by it. I am accordingly of the opinion that the learned Civil Judge has no jurisdiction to abate the present suit for specific performance of the contract of sale. I accordingly allow the revision application and set aside the order of the learned Civil Judge abating the suit. In the circumstances of the case, I direct that parties shall bear their own costs of this revision application. .;