Dalbir Singh vs Gopal Singh

B.S. Yadav, J.

The facts leading to this revision petition are that Messrs Telu Ram Des Raj had obtained a decree for Rs. 2,393.68 paise against the present petitioner Dalbir Singh. The decreeholder applied for execution of the decree for the recovery of the said amount by attachment of the land of the judgmentdebtor. The judgmentdebtor filed objectionpetition and inter alia pleaded that he was a marginal farmer. This plea appears to have been taken in view of the provisions of the Haryana Relief of Agricultural Indebtedness Act (No. 18 of 1976) (for short the Act).

The executing Court framed two issues, but it is not necessary to reproduce them: Suffice it to say that the Court held that though the plaintiff was a marginal farmer, but he had failed to prove that his annual household income did not exceed Rs. 2400/. It accordingly dismissed the objectionpetition, as the annual income was found to be more than Rs. 2400/. Feeling aggrieved, the judgmentdebtor has come this Court in revision.

Section 5 of the Act reads as follows :

"Notwithstanding anything contained in any enactment for the time being in force or in any contract or other instrument having the force of law (a) every debt, together with any interest payable thereon owed on the commencement of this Act by an agricultural labourer, a rural artisan, or a marginal farmer, whose annual household income does not exceed two thousand and four hundred rupees, shall be deemed to be wholly discharged; ... ..."

Vide definition of `debt'' given section 2(f) of the Act, it includes all liabilities of the creditors including the liability payable under a decree or order of Civil Court. On the basis of the definition of `debt'' given in the Act and the above reproduced section 5(a) thereof, the learned counsel for the petitioner argued that the debt outstanding against the petitioner stood discharged. I am of the opinion that the said argument has no force. Section 5(a) of the Act applies only to those debts which were outstanding from the category of persons mentioned therein on the commencement of the Act. The Act was published in the Haryana Government Gazette (Extra), Legislative Supplement Part I, dated March 26, 1976. Subsection (2) of section 1 of the Act lays down that the provisions of sections 3 and 4 would be deemed to have come into force on the 22nd day of August, 1975 and the remaining provisions shall come into force on such date as the State Government may, by notification, appoint. Vide notification No. 1541R576/9129 dated March 30, 1976, published in the Haryana Government Gazette (Extra) of the same date, the remaining provisions of the Act were made applicable from the above date, i.e. March 30, 1976. In the present case, the decree against the judgment debtor was passed on August 4, 1980. Thus, this debt was not in existence on the date under section 5 of the Act came into force. Therefore, I have not been able to understand how the judgmentdebtor can take the benefit of section 5(a) of the Act even if it be assumed that his annual household income did not exceed Rs. 2,400/. In fact, the whole Act is not applicable to the present case. In view of section 8 of the Act, a debtor or creditor could apply within six months from the date of notification under subsection (2) of section 1 to the Settlement Officer for the settlement. The present debt came into existence after the expiry of that period.

On merits also I do not find any force. The executing Court has given a definite finding that the judgmentdebtor had been selling the crops worth many thousands of rupees in a year through the firm M/s Raj Kumar Sushil Kumar, Commission Agents. This is a finding of fact and cannot be interfered in revision as there is no allegation to the effect that the Court committed any material irregularity while arriving at that finding.

For the reasons given above, the present revision petition fails and the same is hereby dismissed. No costs.