Jurisdiction of Civil Court and Tahsildar considered.

ORDER:- The defendant in O.S. No. 687 of 1979, District Munsif's Court, Erode, is the petitioner in this civil revision petition. On 12-9-1974, according to the case of the respondent, the petitioner borrowed a sum of Rs. 2,000/- and executed a promissory note in favour of the respondent promising to repay the said sum together with interest thereon at 12 per cent per annum and that a sum of Rs. 2,555/- remained to be recovered from the petitioner under the promissory note. The suit was filed by the respondent to recover this amount on the footing that the

petitioner is not entitled to the benefits of any of the debt laws. The petitioner filed a written statement contending that only a sum of Rs. 1,000/- had been received by him under the promissory note and therefore, the promissory note was supported by consideration only to that extent and that the entire interest up to 10-9-1977 had also been paid. The petitioner further contended that he is not carrying on any business, that he is also not assessed to sales tax and that he is entitled to the benefits of Tamil Nadu Act 17 of 1976. In an additional written statement, the petitioner raised a plea that he is a "debtor" within the meaning of Tamil Nadu Act 13 of 1980 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) as his annual household income is less than Rs. 4800/- and that the suit should, therefore, be dismissed as abated in accordance with the provisions of the Act.

2. Consistent with the plea raised that he is entitled to the benefits of the Act, the petitioner appears to have moved the Tahsildar of Bhavani for the issue of a certificate as regards the income and also to the effect that the petitioner is a debtor entitled to the benefits of the Act. Alleging that that application was still pending before the Tahsildar, Bhavani and that the enquiry therein stood posted to 25-9-1980, the petitioner prayed for the stay of the trial of the suit O.S. No. 687 of 1979 before the District Munsif's Court, Erode, till the disposal of the application filed by the petitioner by the Tahsildar, Bhavani. That application was dismissed by the learned District Munsif, Erode, by his order dated 22-9-1980, in the following terms :

"Suit already posted in the list. Defendant does not proceed with the case. Petition is highly belated. Hence rejected."

It is the correctness of this order that is challenged by the petitioner in this civil revision petition.

3. Since in the civil revision petition important questions touching the scope of the provisions of the Act in relation to the respective jurisdiction of the civil Court as well as that of the Tahsildar under the Act arise and the respondent has not appeared through counsel, it has become necessary to appoint Mr. N.R. Chandran as amicus curiae to assist the Court.

4. The learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the petitioner is a debtor within the meaning of the Act and that the concerned Tahsildar has already been moved for a certificate to that effect and since those proceedings are still pending, the proceedings before the civil Court should be stayed till the disposal of the proceedings before the Tahsildar. On the other hand, it is contended by Mr. N.R. Chandran that with reference to proceedings already initiated and pending before civil Courts and matters which had already proceeded to a decree, the Tahsildar is not empowered under the Act to adjudicate upon them and therefore the pendency of any proceeding for a certificate before the concerned Tahsildar is of no consequence. It is also further submitted that with reference to money claim before a civil Court whether in the stage of a pending suit or a decree pending execution or its subsequent stages, there is no machinery in the Act to work out the rights of debtor by making an application before the concerned Tahsildar and therefore, there is no need to await the certificate or the decision of a Tahsildar with reference to the claim by the petitioner of the benefits under the