( 1 ) THIS is a revision under Section 25 of the Provincial Small Cause Courts Act from a judgment and decree of the Small Cause Court. Hoshangabad, dismissing the plaintiffs' claim.

( 2 ) THE petitioners' case was that the respondent borrowed from them one Mani of juar and 2 maunds of gram on September 11, 1967 under a receipt (Ex P-l) and promised to return l1/4 quantity of the grain so taken on credit. It is not in dispute that the value of the grain borrowed was Rs. 210/ -. The plaintiffs claimed Rs. 310/- by including Rs. 100/- as damages for breach of the contract for not returning the grain as promised.

( 3 ) THE defence was that the plaintiffs practised fraud on the defendant and obtained his signature on Ex, P-l after compromising a case which had been pending before the Debt Relief Court, The execution of the document was, however, admitted subject to the above contention.

( 4 ) THE learned Judge of the Small Cause Court dismissed the suit with the observation that since a compromise (Ex. P-l) had been executed between the parties on August 25, 1967, it could not be believed that the plaintiff would again advance grain of the value of Rs. 210/-on credit within a fortnight, that is to say on September 11, 1967. He further held that the suit was barred by Section 7 of the Madha Pradesh Anusuchit Janjati Rini Sahayata Adhiniyam. 1967 (hereinafter called the Act ).

( 5 ) IT is an admitted fact that the defendant belongs to a scheduled tribe. In this revision, the petitioners' contention is that the Act does not apply to the debt in suit. The Act applies only to debts which had been incurred before the commencement of the Act and its application to the area concerned on the appointed date. Emphasising the definition of the word 'debt', it is argued that unless the debt was subsisting on the appointed date (which so far as the present case is concerned is March 15, 1967), the provisions of the Act would have no application. In order to appreciate this contention, we shall refer to some provisions of the Act. Section 2 (4) of the Act defines 'debt' as to include" (

i) all liabilities owing to a creditor in cash, or kind, secured or unsecured, payable under a decree or order of a Civil Court or otherwise, and subsisting on the appointed date whether due or not due; (ii) arrears of wages or salary subsisting on the appointed date. " this definition makes it clear that where a debt is payable under a decree or it is due otherwise, and even if it is not vet due, it will be a debt within the meaning of the Act provided it is "subsisting" on the appointed date. The same thing applies to arrears of wages or salary, The force of the word 'subsisting' is that, on March 15, 1967, the debt in respect of which the provisions of the Act ace sought to be applied must be in existence. This definition obviously does not apply to a debt which was borrowed after the appointed date. It is contended for the respondent that this definition is an inclusive definition, it does not say that the word 'debt' means the things enumerated in the definition, but merely includes those things, so that a debt borrowed even after the appointed date will be a 'debt' for the purposes of the Act This interpretation does not fit in with the scheme of the Act to which we shall advert presently. ( 6 ) SECTION 2 (10) of the Act defines 'secured debt' as follows:

" 'secured Debt' means a debt subsisting on the appointed date whether due or not due, and secured by mortgage of, or charge on the immovable property or by pawn or pledge of movable property of the debtor. "

The word 'creditor' is defined in Section 2 (3) of the Act to mean a person to whom a debt is owing. The word debtor is defined as meaning a member of a scheduled Tribe by whom such debt is owed. It is obvious enough that the reference is to 'debt' as defined in Section 2 (4) of the Act.

( 7 ) NOW the Act provides a special procedure for dealing with such a debt as is owing to a creditor a