DWARKA PRASAD, J. - (1.) THIS revision application has been filed against the order passed by the Munsif, Deeg dated August 16, 1977 refusing to abate the proceedings in execution on account of the provisions of sec. 5 of the Rajasthan Relief of Agricultural Indebtedness Act, 1957.
(2.) A decree passed in favour of M/s. B. Ramgopal Poddar against the judgment debtors M/s. Gopal Das Brij Kishore by the Sub-Judge, 1st Class, Delhi on May 22, 1974, was transferred for execution to the court of Munsif, Deeg. The Judgment-debtors submitted an application on May 28, 1977 in M/s Gopaldas Brijkishore vs. B. Ram Gopal Poddar (Dwarka Prasad J.) RLW 1979 the executing court stating that their application under sec. 6 of the Rajasthan Relief of Agricultural Indebtedness Act, 1957 (hereinafter referred to as "the Act") has been admitted by the Debt Relief Court, Deeg, and was pending before that court and as such the execution proceedings should be abated under sec. 5 (l) (i) of the Act. An objection was raised on behalf of the decree-holder that the decree was transferred from the court of Sub-Judge, 1st Class, Delhi and the provisions of the Rajasthan Relief of Agricultural Indebtedness Act are not applicable to such a decree. Section 5 (1) of the Act runs as under : - "5 (1 ). Whenever a suit or an insolvency petition against a debtor or 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 section 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 the 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. " According to the aforesaid provision, whenever a suit is brought or made and is pending against a 'debtor', as defined in the Act, in a competent court and the debtor applied to such court in that respect, then the court shall abate such suit or proceedings, if it is satisfied that an application to the Debt Relief Court under Section 6 has been made and admitted and is pending. In Ratan Chand vs. Anthudan (1), It was held by a learned Judge of this Court that the expression 'suit' occurring in sec. 5 of the Act is used in a comprehensive sense and includes execution proceedings and that execution proceedings are also liable to abatement, if notice of the admission of an application made by the Judgment-debtor under sec. 6 (1) of the Act is received by the executing court and if such application is pending. Thus, as held in the aforesaid case, if the expression 'suit' employed in sec. 5 of the Act is also equally applicable to execution proceedings, then there is no reason why the present execution application should not be abated, as it is not in dispute that the debtors have filed an application to the Debt Relief Court, Deeg. under sec. 6 of the Act and the same has been admitted and is pending in that Court. The fact that the decree was passed by the Sub-Judge, 1st Class, Delhi is not at all material, so far as the same is sought to be executed in a court in Rajasthan, because the provisions of sec. 5 of the Act are equally applicable to execution proceedings in respect of such a decree, in the same manner as they apply to the execution of a decree passed by a Court in Rajasthan. However, the abatement of execution proceedings in the court at Deeg would not affect the executability of the decree in a Delhi court. The decree can be executed even now outside Rajasthan, but so far as the Deeg court is concerned, and for that matter in any court in Rajasthan, the execution proceedings shall abate, by reason of the application of the provisions of section 5 (1) of the Act. Section 42 C. P. C, as amended by the Amendment Act of 1976, provides that the court executing a decree sent to it, shall have the same powers in execution of the decree as if it had been passed by itself. Thus, the transferee court is bound to execute the decree in accordance with the law of procedure obtaining at the place where the transferee court is located. The question of abatement of the execution proceeding do not touch the substantive rights of the parties in respect of the decree in question, but it only affects, the procedure for the execution, of the decree in the court at Deeg. If the execution proceedings cannot be continued in that court, on account of fact that an application made by the judgment-debtor under section 6 of the Act has been admitted and is pending, then it is not material as to whether the decree was passed by a court situated in Rajasthan or outside. So far as the proceedings in execution of such a decree in a court in Rajasthan are concerned, the law of this State shall prevail. A decision of the Mysore High Court in Basheer Ahamed vs. G. Padmanabha Kamath (2), was cited before the trial court on behalf of the decree holder. In that case also, it has been held that the transferee court has to execute the decree in accordance with the law of procedure applicable to the transferee court, although the substantive law of that place may not be made applicable to such execution cases. In that case, the question was as to whether the transferee court could direct payment of the decretal amount by instalments, on account of the provisions of the Mysore Agricultural Relief Act, and it was held that the rights and liabilities of the parties to the decree were to be governed by the law, which regulated the transactions at the place where the decree was passed, and the court executing the decree has to do so in accordance with the law of procedure prevalent at that place. The facts of the Mysore case are different from those of the present case, inasmuch as there is no question of granting any instalments in the decree in question. But the only question which requires consideration in the present case is as to whether the execution proceedings pending in the court at Deeg should abate, in face of the fact that an application field under sec. 6 of the Act has been admitted, and the case is still pending in the Debt Relief Court. I am, therefore, of the view that sec. 5 (1) of the Act shall be fully applicable to such cases, notwithstanding the fact that the decree, which is the subject-matter of execution in the court at Deeg, was passed, by a court in Rajasthan or outside.
(3.) ACCORDINGLY, the revision application is allowed, the order passed by the learned Munsif, Deeg dated August 16, 1977 is set aside and the case is remanded to the said court with a direction that he should decide the application of the judgment-debtor filed under sec. 5 (1) of the Rajasthan Relief of Agricultural Indebtedness Act, 1957 afresh, in accordance with law and in the light of the observations made above. The record of the trial court should be sent back to that court immediately. The parties are direced to bear their own costs of the proceedings in this Court. . ;