The main legal point established in the judgment is that a liability to pay mesne profits does not constitute a 'debt' under the Bengal Agricultural Debtors Act until a final decree is passed, and the Civil Court is competent to determine whether a liability is a 'debt' within the meaning of the Act.

JUDGMENT

B.K. Mukherjea, J. - This rule is directed against an order of the Sadar Munsif, Faridpur, dated 25-6-1940, refusing to stay a proceeding for ascertainment of mesne profits on receipt of a notice u/s 34, Bengal Agricultural Debtors Act. The material facts are not in controversy and may be stated as follows : The opposite party 1, Taher Mallik, brought a suit against the petitioners and certain other persons in the Court of the Sadar Munsif at Faridpur, for recovery of possession of certain property on establishment of his title to the same. There was also a prayer for mesne profits in the plaint. The suit culminated in a decree passed by the trial Court on 13th August 1936, which was finally affirmed by this Court in S. A. No. 456 of 1938. The plaintiff's claim for khas possession in respect of the lands in suit was allowed, and it was further declared that he would be entitled to recover mesne profits from the defendants, which would be ascertained on an application made by him under Order 20, Rule 12, Civil P.C. The plaintiff obtained delivery of possession of the property in suit through Court, and then started the present proceeding for ascertainment of mesne profits as directed by the preliminary decree. During the pendency of the proceeding two of the judgment-debtors applied to the Debt Settlement Board at Majchar for settlement of their debts u/s 8, Bengal Agricultural Debtors Act, and on 11th June 1940, the Munsif received a notice from the Board u/s 34 of the Act, requesting him to stay further proceedings in the suit. This the Munsif refused to do, on the ground that no debt in the sense of an absolute or perfected debt having as yet come into existence, the provision of Section 34, Agricultural Debtors Act, was not applicable to the facts of the present case. It is the propriety of the decision that has been challenged before us in this rule.

2. In order that a suit or proceeding may be stayed u/s 34, Bengal Agricultural Debtors Act, it is necessary that it must relate to a debt, which is included in an application u/s 8 or a statement u/s 13 (1) of the Act. The Munsif was of opinion that as the inquiry was still pending, there was no certainty as to whether any money would be payable by the defendants as mesne profits or not, and a liability which might or might not arise in future would not be a 'debt' within the meaning of the Act. Mr. Mukherjee, who appears in support of the rule, argues before us that this view is not correct; and that the liability of the defendants to pay mesne profits is a present liability, though the amount is still unascertained, and it is not in any way dependent upon a future contingency which might or might not happen. In support of this argument, reliance has been placed by the learned advocate on a decision of Edgley J. which is to be found reported in Revati Mohan Roy Vs. Bhik Chand Bhuian, AIR 1939 Cal 343 Now a debt, as defined in Section 2 (8) , Agricultural Debtors Act, includes all liabilities incurred prior to 1st January 1940, of a debtor in cash or in kind, secured or unsecured, whether payable under a decree or order of a civil Court or otherwise and whether payable presently or in future. Then follows a list of exceptions, item (i) of which excludes from the category of debt any liability the payment of which is contingent. Strictly speaking, this is not a definition, but a description of the term 'debt,' and the description has both a positive and a negative aspect, which set out the limits within which the expression is to be confined for purposes of the [Act. Section 2 (8) begins by saying that the liability must be that of a debtor; this means that the obligation must be one to pay a debt in the accepted sense of the word, and unless the liability is that of a debtor, it would not amount to a debt within the meaning of the Act, even though the particular case does not come within the purview of any of the exceptions enumerated in the section.

3. A "debt" in the