JUDGMENT - Gajendragadkar, J.

(1) This is a revisional application by the plaintiff in which an order passed by the Civil Judge, Senior Division, Sangli, directing the transfer of the suit under Section 19 of the Bombay Agricultural Debtors Relief Act (Bom. XXVIII (28) of 1947) is challenged before us. The plaintiff is the Miraj State Bank Limited and in the suit that the plaintiff had filed against the defendants a claim was made for Rs. 7,294-9-0. This suit was filed in the Court of the Civil Judge, Senior Division, Sangli. On September 11, 1950, the defendants applied to the Court under Section 19, Sub-section (1), of the Act, and alleged that they were debtors within the meaning of the Act and that their total debts did not exceed Rs. 15,000. They, therefore, claimed that the suit should be transferred for disposal in accordance with the provisions of the Bombay Agricultural Debtors Belief Act. The plaintiff resisted this application on the ground that the claim made by the bank in the present suit was outside the scope of the Bombay Agricultural Debtors Relief Act altogether. The learned Judge rejected this contention and he has directed that the suit should be transferred under Section 19, Sub-section (1), of the Act. It is this order which is challenged before us by the plaintiff petitioner.

(2) Mr. Madbhavi for the petitioner has strongly relied upon the provisions of Section 3 of the Bombay Agricultural Debtors Relief Act. This section provides that nothing in this Act shall affect the debts and liabilities of a debtor falling under the seven classes in the section. Amongst these classes is the sum due to a merged State bank, and there is no dispute that the plaintiff bank is a merged State Bank. Mr. Madbhavi says that this section in clear terms provides that the dispute between a merged State bank and its debtor is not intended to be affected by the provisions of this Act and in that sense must fall outside the Act altogether.

On this view Mr. Madbhavis contention further is that when Section 19, Sub-section (1), of the Act, refers to suits in respect of any debt and directs that such suits should be transferred, it must be deemed to refer to the suits for the recovery of debts other than those mentioned in Section 3 of the Act. If this is the true position, it would have to be held that the learned Judge had no jurisdiction to transfer the suit as requested by the defendants. It is quite true that by asking for a transfer of the suit under Section 19(1) the defendants are virtually seeking to oust the ordinary jurisdiction of the civil Court, and this can be permitted only if the provisions of the Act make it clear beyond doubt that the suit must be transferred to be tried by the special Courts administering the Bombay Agricultural Debtors Relief Act.

(3) Now, in dealing with this question, it is necessary to refer to the scheme of the Bombay Agricultural Debtors Relief Act and some of the relevant provisions contained in it. The word "debt" is defined by Section 2, Sub-section (4), of the Act as meaning any liability in cash or kind, whether secured or unsecured due from a debtor whether payable under a decree or order of any civil Court or otherwise and includes mortgage money the payment of which is secured by the usufructuary mortgage of immovable property but does not include arrears of wages payable in respect of agricultural or manual labour. Thus, it is obvious that the definition of the word "debt" would include the debt due to the bank. Section 3 to which I have already referred is a saving section and it provides that seven classes of debts enumerated in this section would not be affected by anything contained in this Act.

Section 4 deals with the application which has to be made for the adjustment of debts and Sub-section (3) of this section provides that notwithstanding anything contained in Section 3 an application made under this section shall contain the amounts and particulars of all debts specified in

Click Here to Read the rest of this document