( 1 ) THIS group of cases have been referred to the Full Bench for deciding the contour of jurisdiction of the Civil Court under sec. 11 of the Gujarat Rural Debtors Relief Act 1976 read with sec. 12 thereof. In Rana Mafatlal Gordhanbhai v. Mahendrabhai Babubhai 19 G. L. R. 529 Mr. Justice B. K. Mehta interpreted these sections and tried to resolve the conflict of jurisdiction between the Civil Court on one hand and the Debt Settlement Officer on the other hand by holding that the jurisdiction of the Civil Court is completely ousted and if any question under the said Act arises the Civil Court must stay the suit and direct the party to have the question decided by Debt Settlement Officer. After Mr. Justice B K. Mehta rendered that decision the same question arose before a Division Bench of this Court in Parshottam Ambavi v. Patel Hansraj Valji Bhalodia 20 G. L. R 7. The decision rendered by Mr. Justice B. K. Mehta was not shown to the Division Bench. The Division Bench therefore did not have the benefit of knowing his views. Upon the consideration of several provisions of the said Act the Division Bench decided that jurisdiction of the Civil Court was not completely ousted under sec. 11 read with sec. 12 and that the Civil Court had the jurisdiction to decide whether the provisions of this Act apply to a particular case pending before it or whether the judgment-debtor in execution proceedings is a debtor within the meaning of the said expression as defined in the said Act. Really speaking. there was no conflict as there cannot be any between the decision of Mr. Justice B. K. Mehta and the decision of the Division Bench. Since the Division Bench had taken a contrary view the decision of the learned single Judge was by necessary implication overruled. In case of conflict between the decision of the single Judge and the decision of a Division Bench it is the decision of the Division Bench alone which holds the field. Yet to Mr. Justice R. C. Mankad it was pointed out in some of the cases that there was a conflict between the decision of Mr. Justice B. K. Mehta and the decision of the Division Bench. The learned Judge felt that there was such a conflict and therefore he directed the cases placed before him to be referred to a larger Bench. It is under these circumstances that the question which has been examined by a Division Bench of this Court in Patel Parshottam Ambavis case (supra) has cropped up again and this Bench is required to re-examine it.

( 2 ) BEFORE we proceed to analyse the relevant provisions of the Act in order to come to a correct conclusion it is necessary to refer to the decision of Mr. Justice B. K. Mehta in Mafatlal Gordhanbhais case (supra ). The sole reason which appealed to the learned Judge was that there would be conflict of jurisdiction between the two authorities specified in sec. 11 and sec. 12 if it was held that the Civil Court had the jurisdiction to determine questions specified in sec. 11 of the said Act. In his view if it was held that the jurisdiction of the Civil Court to decide the questions which have been specified in sec. 11 was not ousted it would lead to patently absurd result. In order therefore to avoid the accrual of such a patently absurd result the learned Judge held that reading secs. II and 12 together the jurisdiction of the Civil Court was obviously excluded. The learned Judge has also considered the scheme of secs. 85 and 85a of the Bombay Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act 1948 and compared it with the scheme which emerges from secs. 11 and 12 of the Gujarat Rural Debtors Relief Act 1976 On reading sec. 129 the learned Judge was impressed by the fact that the decision of the Debt Settlement Officer was made final and was not open to be called in question in any civil or revenue Court. He therefore held that as soon as the defendant raised the contention that he was a debtor within the meaning of that expression given in Gujarat Rural De