- (1.) THESE three references have been made by Jagat Narayan, J. , in revision petitions filed in this Court and a common question of law regarding interpretation of Sections 5 and 6 of the Rajas-than Relief of Agricultural Indebtedness Act, 1957 (Act No. 28 of 1957) (hereinafter called the Act) has been raised in them. These sections run as follows:-"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 Section 6 or Section 6a 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 Clause (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-section (1) shall have been pending (i) against a member of a Scheduled Caste or a Scheduled Tribe, at the date of the applicability of this Act to such castes or tribes appointed under Section 2-A, and (ii) in other cases at the date of the commencement of this Act, an application for stay of proceeding under Sub-section (1) may be made within six months of the date of such applicability or such commencement, as the case may be. 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-section (1) or Sub-section (2) shall be signed and verified in accordance with Order VI, Rule 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 Section 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 Clause (ii) of subsection (1.) of Section 5 an application under Sub-section (1) or Sub-section (2) of this Section, as the case may be, shall be filed within the period fixed under the proviso to subsection (1) of Section 5. (5) All applications pending before Debt Relief Court 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 proceedings may have been stayed under Clause (ii) of Sub-section (1) of Section 5 shall abate (i) if no such application as is referred to in Sub-section (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 he entitled to file another application in any Debt Relief Court and any proceedings stayed under Sub-section (1) of Section 5 shall be resumed. "
(2.) IN Civil Revision No. 209/66 Pyarelal had filed a suit against Smt. Rani Raman kumari for the recovery of Rs. 1066,76 in the court of Munsif East, Jaipur City. The defendant filed an application in that suit contending that she was an agriculturist and was a debtor within the meaning of Section 2 (cc) of the Act and that she would file an application under Section 6 of the Act in the competent Debt Relief court and that till then the suit be stayed. The court accepted that she was a debtor and stayed the proceedings in the suit. Shrimati Rani Raman Kumari then filed an application under Section 6 (1) of the Act before the Munsif Dausa praying for determination of her debts. On 2nd August, 1964 counsel for the plaintiff admitted in the court of Munsif, East Jaipur City that the defendant had filed an application under Section 6 (1) of the Act and on this admission the court passed the order that in view of the admission, the suit be stayed and added that the suit be struck off from its number and be consigned to the record room. There is no express order of the abatement of the suit. On 23rd December, 1964 the Debt relief Court decided that Rani Raman Kumari was not a debtor within the meaning of the Act and her application under Section 6 (1) of the Act was not maintainable. Thereupon on 24th March, 1965 the plaintiff filed an application in the court of munsif, East Jaipur City, that the suit filed by him be restored to its original number and that further proceedings be taken thereon. The learned Munsif by his order dated 5th May, 1965 relying on the authority of this Court in Karansee v. Bastichand, 3964 Raj LW 442 dismissed the application on the ground that the suit could not be restored as it had abated. The plaintiff filed a revision application in this Court which came for hearing before Jagat Narayan J. The learned Judge has taken the view that Karansee's case, 3964 Raj LW 442 required to be reconsidered. He formulated the following question and referred the case to a larger bench:- "whether the Civil Court can revive proceedings abated under Sections 5 and 6 of the Rajasthan Relief of Agricultural Indebtedness Act, 1957. "
(3.) THE facts in Civil Revision No. 382/ 66 are similar except that the court in which the suit was filed had passed an express order of abatement of the suit.;