Jai Krishan etc. vs Bhajan Dass

R.S. Pathak, C.J.—This revision petition is directed against an order of the learned Subordinate Judge, Rohru rejecting the Petitioner''s application that he was a "debtor" within the meaning of Section 2(1)(g) of the Himachal Pradesh Relief of Agricultural Indebtedness Act, 1975, and that the suit be declared as having abated. By his order dated June 23, 1976 the learned Subordinate Judge has rejected the application on the ground that it is vague, misleading and ambiguous inasmuch as it does not disclose whether the defendant is a marginal farmer or a landless agricultural labourer or a rural artisan who is in debt. He has also observed that having regard to the material before him there was no prima facie question to be referred to the Revenue Officer for decision u/s 2(2) of the Act. So far as the first point is concerned, the learned Subordinate Judge was fully justified in rejecting the application on the short ground that it was vague and ambiguous. The relief embodied in Section 3 of the Act is available only to a debtor, and a "debtor" has been defined as a marginal farmer, a landless agricultural labourer or a rural artisan who is in debt, but the expression does not include a small farmer. It was for the defendant to raise a specific pleading and state clearly whether he belonged to one of those categories in order to justify inclusion within the expression "debtor" used in the Act. The pleading should have been specific so as to enable the learned Subordinate Judge to apply his mind to the question whether a reference should be made u/s 2(2) of the Act. The pleading being what it was, it is clear that no fault can be found with the view taken by the learned Subordinate Judge. The application was rightly rejected as vague and ambiguous.

It is pointed out that the learned Subordinate Judge has come to a finding on the merits of the question whether the defendant was a "debtor" within the meaning of the Act. To my mind, inasmuch as the learned Subordinate Judge rejected the application on the ground that it was vague and ambiguous, he should not have entered into the merits of the case and expressed any opinion thereon. Any observation made by him on the merits must be ignored in the trial of the suit.

In the view that I am taking in this case, I am fortified by what I said in Gopal Singh v. Kanwar Singh (Civil Revision No. 14 of 1976) decided on April 1, 1976.

While concluding, I may observe that it is open to the defendant, who I am told has yet to file a written statement in the suit, to raise the plea in his written statement that he is a marginal farmer or a landless agricultural labourer or a rural artisan who is in debt, and not a small farmer.

The revision fails and is dismissed. But there is no order as to costs.