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 abundant