1. The main question for decision in this appeal is whether a suit for recovery of a debt from an agriculturist, instituted when the Madras Indebted Agriculturists (Temporary Relief) Act, V of 1954, was in force, could be dismissed or could only be stayed under S.4 of the Act. A Division Bench which heard the appeal has referred the same to a Full Bench as the correctness of an earlier decision of a Single Judge of this court holding that such a suit should be stayed was canvassed before it.

2. The plaintiff sued for recovery of Rs. 10,000/- and interest due from defendants 1 and 2 (father and son) under a registered promissory note for Rs. 20,000/- executed by the defendants in favour of the 3rd defendant and endorsed by the latter to the plaintiff. The defendants contended that they were "agriculturists" within the definition of the term in Act V of 1954 (Madras) and that the suit filed in contravention of S.3 of the Act should be dismissed. Issue No.1 which dealt with this question was tried as a preliminary issue and the court below came to the conclusion that the defendants were agriculturists. The suit was accordingly dismissed and the plaintiff has preferred this