TYAGI, J. - (1.) THIS appeal of judgment-debtor Ganesh Lal is directed against the order of the learned Additional District Judge, Sirohi, dated January 19, 1974, whereby two applications of judgment-debtor, one filed on 4th December, 1973, and the other on 18th December, 1973, were dismissed by the executing Court.
(2.) THE facts giving rise to this appeal may, in nutshell, be summarised as follows - Decree-holder-respondent Magan Raj obtained a decree from the Court of Civil Judge, on 21st October, 1967 In the execution proceedings, the judgment debtor took a plea that he was an agriculturist ; but that plea was rejected by the executing Court. It appears that the house belonging to the judgment-debtor was got attached by Magan Raj, decree-holder, and in that connection an application was filed on 18th December, 1973 by the judgment debtor that the house attached was exempted from attachment under the provisions of sec. 60 of the Code of Civil Procedure because it was a residential house of an agriculturist. Another objection raised by the judgment-debtor vide his application dated 4th December, 1973 was that no claim was filed by Maganraj to get his debt determined in a proceeding taken by Himmat Mal, another creditor of Ganeshmal, under sec. 6 of the Rajasthan Relief of Agricultural Indebtedness Act, 1957 (hereinafter to be referred to as the Act) and, therefore, the debt of the decree holder against the judgment-debtor should be taken to have been discharged under sec. 8 of the Act. Both these objections were rejected by the executing Court by the impugned order under appeal. The contention of learned counsel for the appellant is that the appellant was declared by the Debt Relief Court, Jalore in the proceedings initiated by Himmatmal as an agriculturist. Therefore, his house, which was attached in the execution proceedings, should have been declared as exempted from attachment under sec. 60 of the Code of Civil Procedure. The learned executing Court rejected this objection on the ground that such an objection was taken by the judgment-debtor even before, but that objection was dismissed by the executing Court on 21st October, 1967 declaring that the judgment-debtor was not an agriculturist as he was running a ginning factory, and that he was a man of means and was not dependent on agriculture for his livelihood. In view of the previous order passed between the parties on 21st October, 1967, the executing Court was right in rejecting the application of the judgment-debtor filed by him on 18th December, 1973, on the application of doctrine of res judicata. There is no reasonable ground available to the appellant to challenge the order of the executing Court dismissing his application dated 18-12-73. The second question raised by the judgment-debtor is more important, and requires a close scrutiny of the provisions of Sec. 8 of the Act. It is admitted between the parties that one Himmatmal, who had advanced loan to the judgment-debtor-appellant, filed an application under Sec. 6 of the Act, in the Debt Relief Court, Jalore, but the debt of Himmatmal, could not be determined as it was satisfied before the final order was passed by the Debt Relief Court. While disposing of the application of Himmatmal the Debt Relief Court made an observation that Ganesh Mal was an agriculturist. It is on the basis of these observations of the Jalore Court that an application was moved by the judgment-debtor on 4-12-73 seeking a declaration that the decretal debt of the respondent who did not put up any claim before that Debt Relief Court be deemed to have been discharged. It may, however, be noted here that respondent Maganraj was not made a party to the proceedings in the Debt Relief Court though he was called to appear as a witness on behalf of Himmatmal to prove the execution of the bond-the basis of Himmatmal's claim. The contention of the learned counsel for the appellant is that since Magan Raj, respondent had appeared as a witnesss in the proceedings under the Act before the Debt Relief Court, Jalore, he knew that the proceedings under Sec. 6 of the Act were initiated against Ganeshmal, who was his debtor and it was, therefore, incumbent on him to have filed his claim. Since Magan Raj, respondent, did not file any claim before the Debt Relief Court, it is urged that his debt must be deemed to have been discharged under the provisions of Sec. 8 of the Act. This plea of the judgment debtor takes the Court to the Scheme of the Act. Section 6 of the Act lays down the provision for initiating proceedings in a Debt Relief Court for the determination of the debt of an agriculturist debtor. Such an application can also be made by a creditor. When an application is moved under Section 6 of the Act, it becomes the duty of the Debt Relief Court to admit it, if the debtor or the creditor, whoever may be the applicant succeeds to establish that the debtor is an agriculturist. After an application under Sec. 6 of the Act is admitted by the Debt Relief Court, then the provisions of Sections 7 and 8 are attracted. Section 7 provides : - "sec. 7 - Upon the admission of an application under sec. 6 (for sec. 6-A) all creditors of the applicant, including those to whom any liability referred to in sec. 4 is due, shall be joined as parties to the proceedings and the Debt Relief Court shall pass an order fixing a date of hearing, shall cause notice of such date together with a copy of the application, to be served on all such creditors of the applicant and shall cause copies of such notice and application to be affixed to the Court house. "
(3.) AFTER complying with the requirements of Sec. 7, Sec. 8 would come into operation, which reads as follows : - "sec. 8 (1) - On or before the date fixed for the hearing of the creditors under sec. 7 which shall not be earlier than two months from the date of service of notice or of the issue of proclamation under O. V, r. 20 of the First Schedule to the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (Central Act V of 1908), every creditor shall Mibmif a statement of his claim signed and verified in the manner prescribed by O, VI, r. 15, of the First Schedule to the said Code. Such statement shall be submitted in person, by an agent, by a pleader or by registered post and every claim not so submitted shall be deemed for all purposes and all occasions to have been discharged as against such debtor or debtors. " The scheme of these two sections 7 and 8 of the Act clearly shows that after the application made by the debtor or the creditor,as the case may be, under Sec. 6 of the Act is admitted by the Debt Relief Court, then all the creditors shall be impleaded as parties to the proceedings, and it is only after bringing all the creditors on the record, that the Debt Relief Court would proceed further to pass an order fixing a date of hearing, and also it shall cause notice of such date together with a copy of the application, to be served on all such creditors and also shall cause the copies of such notice and the application to be affixed on the notice board of the Court. The provisions of this section are mandatory in character, and it contains a command of the Legislature that after admission of the application in accordance with the provisions of Section 6 of the Act, it would be the duty of the applicant to bring all the creditors on the record. ;