The Displaced Persons (Debts Adjustment) Act ousted the jurisdiction of the civil court to determine the status of a displaced person and the existence of a debt as defined by the Act, and conferred exclusive jurisdiction on the Tribunal established under the Act.

CHAGLA, C.J.:- The plaintiff filed a summary suit in this Court against the defendant on 8-4-1952. On 6-5-1952, the defendant made an application under S.5 of the Displaced Persons (Debts Adjustment) Act to the Tribunal in Delhi who is the Senior Sub-Judge there.

On 30-9-1953, the plaintiff took out a summons for judgment and in his affidavit in reply the defendant contended that inasmuch as he had made an application under S.5, the suit pending before the Court was liable to be stayed under S.15(a). Mr. Justice Tendolkar gave unconditional leave to the defendant to defend for the purpose of having the following issue determined:

"Whether this Court has jurisdiction to determine whether the defendant is a displaced person and whether the claim in suit is a debt within the meaning of those words in the Displaced Persons (Debts Adjustment) Act?"

The learned Judge also expressed an opinion that inasmuch as there were conflicting decisions of single Judges on this question, the matter should be referred to a Division Bench. Thereupon this matter has been referred to this Bench.

2. The Displaced Persons (Debts Adjustment) Act (70 of 1951) is an Act passed by Parliament setting up a special Tribunal to deal with debts due to and by displaced persons, and the question that we have to consider is, what is the jurisdiction of this Tribunal and to what extent the jurisdiction of the civil Court has been ousted?

The Act gives a definition of the expression "debt" and also of "displaced person" and Chapter II deals with debt adjustment proceedings and it deals with three types of applications. One is an application by a displaced debtor for the adjustment of his debts, the second is an application by a displaced creditor having a claim against a displaced debtor, and the third is a claim by a displaced creditor in respect of a debt due from a person who is not a displaced person.

Section 5 provides for an application by a displaced debtor for the adjustment of his debts; and sub-s. (1) provides that a displaced debtor may make an application for the adjustment of his debts to the Tribunal within the local limits of whose jurisdiction he actually and voluntarily resides, or carries on business or personally works for gain. It is under this section that the defendant has made an application to the Delhi Tribunal alleging that he resides or carries on business within the local limits of that Tribunal, that he is a displaced person, and that debts are due by him which should be adjusted.

Sub-section (2) sets out the particulars which should be contained in such an application, and under cl. (e) (i) a schedule must be attached to the application containing full particulars of all his debts, whether owed jointly or individually, with the names and addresses of his creditors and joint-debtors, if any, so far as they are known to, or can by the exercise of reasonable care and diligence be ascertained by him. Section 6 gives the power to the Tribunal to reject the application when that application does not comply with the requirements of S.5. Section 7 provides for the issue of notices on the respondents who are the creditors mentioned in the schedule. The creditors are constituted respondents by S.5(3).

Section 8 deals with the objections by the respondents and the respondent may show cause against the application by filing a written statement. Then comes the important section, S.9, which deals with proceedings after service of notice on the respondents, and sub-s. (1) is to the following effect:

"If there is a dispute as to whether the applicant is a displaced person or not or as to the existence or the amount of the debt due to any creditor or the assets of any displaced debtor, the Tribunal shall decide the matter after taking such evidence as may be adduced by all the parties concerned and shall pass such decree in relation thereto as it thinks fit."

Therefore, by S.9 jurisdiction is conferred upon the Tribunal to decide (1) whether the appl