SHYAM SUNDER BYAS, J. - (1.) THIS is a judgment -debtor's revision -petition directed against the order of the learned Additional District Judge, Rajsamand dated Oct. 20, 1984, by which his application filed under Section 4 of the Rajasthan Scheduled Debtors (Liquidation of Indebtedness) Act, 1976 (here in after to be referred as 'the Act') was dismissed.
(2.) BRIEFLY recounted, the relevant facts giving rise to this revision petition are that the decree -holder M/s Bhimraj Modilal obtained a money decree for a sum of Rs. 10,000/ - against the judgment -debtor Ahmed Khan on October 4, 1983. The decree -holder submitted an application on July 10, 1984 in the court below for execution of the decree. The judgment -debtor submitted an application under Section 4 of the Act on October 20, 1984 stating therein that he was a Scheduled debtor being a marginal farmer and as such the decretal debt be discharged. The learned Additional District Judge summarily dismissed this application taking the view that this defence should have been raised by the judgment -debtor during trial of the civil suit. He also look the view that the certificate filed by the judgment -debtor in support of his application did not show that he was a Scheduled debtor on October 4, 1983 when the decree was passed. Aggrieved against the said order, the judgment -debtor has come -up in revision. I have heared the learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.
(3.) IN assailing the impugned order it was contended by the learned counsel for the judgment -debtor that the whole approach of the court below was erroneous and unsustainable. There is nothing in the Act to show that if the defence relating to the debtor's being, a Scheduled debtor has not been taken during the trial of the suit it cannot be taken later -on by him in execution proceeding. It was argued that Section 4 of the Act speaks for the discharge of debts and any sort of proceeding for the recovery of the debt against the scheduled debtor must abate. It was contended that the court below did not take into consideration the mandatory provisions of Section 4 of the Act. It was, on the other hand, contended by Mr. Mathur, learned counsel appearing for the decree -holder that the view taken by the court below is perfectly correct and calls for no interference.;