The Act has set up a special tribunal for determining whether a person is a debtor within the meaning of the Bengal Agricultural Debtors Act, and its decision is final.

JUDGMENT

S.K. Ghose, J. - Civil Revision Case No. 1708 of 1937 arises out of a money suit. The other two civil revision cases arise out of two execution cases. In all these cases notices were received by the Court for stay of proceedings u/s 34, Bengal Agricultural Debtors Act, 1935. The Court thereupon called upon the party concerned to prove that he was an agricultural debtor within the meaning of the Bengal Agricultural Debtors Act. In the money suit the defendant was absent. In the other two cases the applicant petitioned questioning the jurisdiction of the Civil Court to make an inquiry of that nature. In each case the Court decided that it had jurisdiction and held that the party concerned was not an agriculturist so as to attract the operation of the Bengal Agricultural Debtors Act. In that view it declined to stay the proceedings. The money suit was decreed ex parte. Against these orders these three Rules have been obtained.

2. The question which is common to all the three Rules is whether the Civil Court has jurisdiction to decide the question whether the debtor is a debtor within the meaning of the Bengal Agricultural Debtors Act. A question of a similar nature was discussed by this Bench only recently in Since Reported in Harish Chandra Pal Vs. Chandra Nath Saha and Others, AIR 1938 Cal 369 . The present three cases are sought to be distinguished on this ground that the Settlement Board has not yet come to any decision on the point and it is contended that when a Court receives notice for stay u/s 34, it is within its competence to decide whether the debt with regard to which the suit or proceeding is pending is such as to attract the operation of the Act and thereby give jurisdiction to the Settlement Board. The lower Court held that the Civil Court had jurisdiction relying on a remark of Edgley J. in Nrishingha Charan Nandi Choudhury Vs. Kedar Nath Chaudury, AIR 1937 Cal 713 . That was a case in which the notice had been received by the Court after the property of the judgment-debtor had been sold. So that the Court was in a position to say that the proceeding then pending before it was not a proceeding in respect of the debt which had been satisfied, but that it was a proceeding in respect of the confirmation of the sale. In that view it was held that the Court had no jurisdiction to stay the proceeding on receipt of a notice u/s 34 of the Act. The present case however is different, because no sale has taken place and the debt still exists, so that there is, in fact, a proceeding with regard to the debt which has been included in the application u/s 8 or in the statement under Sub-section (1) of Section 13, as the case may be.

3. It is contended that the Civil Court still has got jurisdiction to decide the question whether the debtor is a debtor within the Act or not and that it may refuse to stay the proceeding upon the view that the notice is invalid. Such contention would seem to conflict with the second part of Section 34 which provides that if the Board includes any part of such debt in the award u/s 25 or if the Board decides that, the debt does not exist, the suit or proceeding shall abate so far as it relates to such debt. The result therefore would be anomalous, if the Court were to proceed with the suit or proceeding in spite of the-notice. The other sections of the Act would confirm the view that if the Settlement Board, as also the Civil Court, were to proceed simultaneously, the result would be anomalous and in fact the decree of the Civil Court would come to nothing. Section 35' bars execution of decrees until the application before the Board has been disposed of. Section 36 provides that a decree of a Civil Court passed in regard to a debt after the date of the application u/s 8 shall be treated as nullity under certain conditions. Section 20' expressly provides that if any question arises in connexion with the proceedings before the Board whether the person is a debtor or not, the Board shall decide