( 1 ) A question of some importance has been raised in this petition as to whether Civil Court has jurisdiction prima facie to determine whether a person is a debtor or not under the Gujarat Rural Debtors Relief Act 1976 (No. 35 of 1976) before any suit appeal application for revision or an application to execute a decree for recovery of a debt abates under sec. 11 thereof. The question arises in the following circumstances in this case :the opponent herein who is a judgment-creditor obtained a decree for recovery of Rs. 3160. 00 against the petitioner in Civil Suit No. 433 of 1973 on the file of Civil Judge (J. D.) at Cambay. The attachment which was obtained before the judgment by the judgment creditor was continued and the said property was put to sale in execution off the said decree. It appears that the petitioner who is a judgment debtor filed some objections against the executability of the decree on June 28 1976 In the objections it was contended inter alia that the rate of interest was too excessive. Now these objections did not find favour with the executing Court and were over-ruled by its order of October 11 1976 The petitioner judgment-debtor carried the matter in appeal before the District Judge at Nadiad by his Civil Appeal No. 1 of 1976. While the objections were pending before the executing Court the Gujarat Rural Debtors Relief Act 1976 was placed on the statute book on August 15 1976 The petitioner judgment-debtor had not raised the plea about the ouster of the jurisdiction in the memo of anneal but was advanced at the time of tearing of the same. It appears that the petitioner judgment-debtor made a fresh application before the executing court on 3-11-1976 for stay of the execution as he was entitled to the benefit of the Gujarat Rural Debtors Relief Act 1976 It appears further that this application for stay of the execution did not find favour with the executing Court which by its order of with December 1976 dismissed the said application holding that the Act is not applicable without assigning any detailed reasons for the said conclu- sion. It should be noted that the District Court also rejected the appeal by its order of 12th January 1977 without deciding the aforesaid new plea of jurisdiction raised at the time of arguments. It is the order of the executing Court rejecting the application for stay of the execution of the decree which is the subject matter of this revision before me.

( 2 ) IN order to answer the question. which has been raised in this revision application whether the executing application should be stayed or not a few provisions of the Gujarat Rural Debtors Relief Act 1976 are to be considered. Sec. 2 Clause (c) defines what is debt and Clause (d) defines who is a debtors. Clause (g) thereof defines marginal farmer and Clauses (1) and (m) define rural artisan Land rural labourer respectively while Clause (k) defines rural area. Sec. 3 provides for the discharge or reduction of debt and the extent thereof in the prescribed cases. Sec. 4 empowers the debtor to the refund of amount paid in excess of twice the principal. before the appointed day. Sec. 5 empowers the State Government for appointment of Debt Settlement Officers. Set. B enjoins every debtor and creditor with a duty to furnish particulars of debt etc. to local authority. Sec. 7 enjoins the authorised Officer to prepare and publish statement of debts. Sec. 8 gives liberty to the disputing debtor or creditor to file his objections within a specified time before the competent Debt Settlement Officer against the particulars punished by the authorised officer under sec. 7. Sub-sec. (4) of sec. 8 requires the Debt Settlement Officer after making necessary inquiry to pass the order is respect of the objections lodged. Sec. 9 requires the debtor to pay debt as determined under sec. 8 in 10 equal annual instalments without interest. Sec. 10 permits postponement of payment of instalment in case of remissions. Secs. 11 and