The Madras Indebted Agriculturists' (Temporary Relief) Act provides temporary relief to agriculturists from legal proceedings for recovery of debt for a limited period, but it does not absolve the debtor from liability. The Act also outlines the procedure to be followed by the court in cases involving agriculturist debtors under S.4.

1. The plaintiff in S.C.S. 76/54 on the file of the Subordinate Court at South Malabar is the petitioner. His suit is for money due under a promissory-note dated 19.9.1951 executed in his favour by the defendant for a sum of Rs. 590/-. The defendant, claiming himself to be an agriculturist as defined in the Madras Indebted Agriculturists' (Temporary Relief) Act 1954 (Act V of 1954), contended that the suit is not maintainable in view of the provision contained in S.3 of that Act. This plea of the defendant was upheld by the learned Subordinate Judge who, thereupon, dismissed the suit with costs on 17th September 1954. The plaintiff seeks a revision of that order on the ground that the Subordinate Judge acted in excess of his jurisdiction in summarily dismissing the suit.

2. The simple question for decision in this case is whether the scope of S.3 of the Madras Indebted Agriculturists' (Temporary Relief) Act, 1954 is such as to completely absolve the agriculturist debtor from his liability to pay the debt in case the creditor institutes a suit in disregard of the mandate contained in that section. I think the answer to this question must be in the negative. It is abundantly clear from the section itself and from the preamble to the Act and also from the other provisions contained in the Act that only a temporary relief for a limited period, from being harassed by creditors was intended to be conferred by the Act on indebted agriculturists. S.3 runs as follows:

"No suit for the recovery of a debt shall be instituted, no application for the execution of a decree for payment of money passed in a suit for the recovery of a debt shall be made, and no suit or application for the eviction of a tenant on the ground of non-payment of a debt shall be instituted or made, against any agriculturist in any Civil or Revenue Court before the expiry of a year from the date of commencement of this Act."

The section as it is applicable to suits merely states that no suit for the recovery of a debt shall be instituted against any agriculturist in any civil or revenue court before the expiry of a year from the date of commencement of the Act. It is significant to note that the benefit of this provision is not made available in respect of a counter claim made by way of set off in a suit instituted by the agriculturist himself. This position is made clear by Explanation.) to S.3 which states that:

" "Suit" does not include a claim to a set off made in a suit instituted by an agriculturist."

Going by the strict terms of S.3, it is clear that the bar imposed by the section is to the effect that for a period of one year from the commencement of the Act the creditor should not institute any legal proceedings for the recovery of a debt due from an agriculturist and not that the creditor should give up his claim against such a debtor. Since the bar is against the institution of legal proceedings within a specified period, it is obvious that the question whether the proceedings are hit by the section, has to be determined on the basis of the particulars disclosed by the papers placed before the court at the commencement of the proceedings and not on the basis of any later decision which may be arrived at by the court after investigation into the matters in controversy between the parties. In other words, if a plaint in a suit, on the face of it, discloses that it is really a suit for the recovery of a debt from the defendant who is an agriculturist the bar under S.3 will operate. The procedure to be followed in such a case is that indicated by R.11 and 12 of O. VII of the Code of Civil Procedure. Cl. (d) of R.11 states that the plaint shall be rejected "Where the suit appears from the statement in the plaint to be barred by any law". R.12 states that "Where a plaint is rejected under R.11, the judge shall record an order to that effect with the reasons for such order." The right of a fresh suit in respect of the same cause of action is expressly sav