The central legal point established in the judgment is the exclusion of debts payable under decrees of the High Court from the purview of the Bengal Agricultural Debtors Act, based on the interpretation of 'Civil Court' and the ultra vires nature of provisions affecting the jurisdiction of the High Court.

JUDGMENT

B.K. Mukherjea, J. - This rule is directed against an order of the Munsif, First Court, Howrah, dated 19th April 1939, by which he refused to stay certain proceedings in execution of a decree in spite of a notice sent to him by the Jagadishpur Debt Settlement Board u/s 34, Bengal Agricultural Debtors Act. The decree was one for a sum of Rs. 1200 only, obtained by the opposite party against the petitioner, on the basis of a promissory note in the original side of this Court. On the application of the decree-holder it was transmitted for execution to the Court of the Munsif, First Court, Howrah, and the decree-holder applied for attachment and sale of certain immovable properties, belonging to the judgment-debtor which were situated within the jurisdiction of that Court. The judgment-debtor there, upon presented an application u/s 8, Bengal Agricultural Debtors Act, to the Jagadishpur Debt Settlement Board for settlement of his debts, and the latter issued a notice u/s 34 of the Act, requesting the executing Court to stay further proceedings in execution of the decree. The Munsif has refused to stay the proceedings on the ground that the decree being passed by the High Court, Section 34, Agricultural Debtors Act, did not apply, and he has relied upon the Special Bench decision of this Court in Narsing Das Tansukdas Vs. Chogemull and Another, AIR 1939 Cal 435 . The propriety of this view has been challenged by Mr. Chandra Sekhar Sen who appears in support of the rule and his contention is that the Special Bench decision has no application to the facts of the present case where the proceedings sought to be stayed are not before the High Court but before a Civil Court which is subordinate to this Court. In the Special Bench case undoubtedly the proceedings in execution were pending in the original side of this Court in respect of a decree passed by itself, and as according to the opinion expressed by the majority of the Judges who composed the Bench, the expression "Civil Court," as used in the Agricultural Debtors Act, was held not to include the High Court, the operation of Section 34 of the Act was necessarily excluded. In the opinion of the other two Judges who did not accept this view, the expression "Civil Court" did include the High Court, but the provisions of Section 34 of the Act, so far as they related to proceedings of the High Court in its original side, were ultra vires and hence inoperative. The Special Bench decision therefore does not directly touch the present case, where the proceedings are not before the High Court itself.

2. I think however that if the expression "Civil Court" as used in the various Sections of the Agricultural Debtor's Act be taken to mean a Court of civil jurisdiction separate from and subordinate to the High Court as held by the majority of the Judges in the Special Bench case, the conclusion would be irresistible that a debt payable under the decree of the original side of this Court would not be a debt within the meaning of the Agricultural Debtors Act. It would not be within the competence of the Debt -Settlement Board constituted under the Act to settle such debts, and no proceeding in respect of the same could be stayed by a notice u/s 34. In no other way I think we can consistently explain the various Sections of the Act, and find out a rational basis for the scheme which underlies it. Agreeably with the view taken by the majority of the Judges in the Special Bench case, we must assume that the Legislature when it passed this enactment was aware of its own limitations, that it did not intend to trench upon the jurisdiction of the High Court derived from Parliament and that in all the Sections where the words "Civil Court" were used it intended to exclude the High Court. If this is the correct position, the Legislature, in my opinion, never intended that a debt which was payable under a decree of the original side of the High Court would come within the purview of the Agricultura