Civil Revision No.2087 of 2010(O & M) 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Civil Revision No.2087 of 2010(O & M) Date of Decision:19.05.2010 Kadam Singh .....petitioner Versus M/s Jai Bhagwan Raghbir Chand .....respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE RAKESH KUMAR GARG 1.Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgement? 2. To be referred to the Reporters or not? 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? Present: Mr.S.R.Hooda,Advocate for the petitioner **** RAKESH KUMAR GARG J. The petitioner, who is a judgement debtor has filed this petition challenging the impugned order dated 04.03.2010, whereby the Executing Court has dismissed the objections raised by him. As per the averments, a suit for recovery for a sum of Rs.3,67,728/- along with costs and interest at the rate of 12% per annum from the date of filing of the suit till its realisation was decreed against the petitioner. Respondent filed Execution Petition No.1 of 2009 in the court of Additional Civil Judge(Senior Division),Kurukshetra seeking execution of the aforesaid decree dated 26.08.2008. Vide Annexure P-2, petitioner raised objections. It is relevant to point out that in his objection petition, the petitioner has stated that since the matter was pending before the authority under Haryana Debt Conciliation Board, Kurukshetra, the present execution petition be dismissed. The Executing Court vide impugned order (Annexure P-3) dismissed the aforesaid objection petition observing that Civil Revision No.2087 of 2010(O & M) 2 the decree dated 26.08.2008 passed in favour of the respondent has never been challenged by the petitioner and he failed to make the payment and has filed a false and frivolous application before Haryana Debt Conciliation Board, Kurukshetra. Challenging the aforesaid order, learned counsel for the petitioner has argued that the petitioner was an agriculturist only and was wholly dependent on the agricultural produce of his fields and hence the decree passed in civil suit against him cannot be executed and entertained by any civil court in view of the provisions of Section 17 of The Haryana Relief of Agricultural Indebtedness Act, 1989(in short “the Act”). It was further argued that the petitioner has already moved an application before the Tribunal at Kurukshetra constituted under the aforesaid Act and therefore in view of the bar of Section 17 of the Act, the decree in question cannot be executed against him and the impugned order was liable to be set aside. I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the impugned order and other documents attached with the revision petition. Admittedly, the decree dated 26.08.2008 sought to be executed against the petitioner has become final between the parties and except the argument, as aforesaid, raised on behalf of the petitioner, no other objection has been raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner in support of his case. As per clause(h) of the aforesaid Act “debtor means an agriculturist, an agricultural labourer or a rural artisan who owes a debt”. The term 'agriculturist' has been defined under Section 2(b) which reads as under: “agriculturist” means a person who owns land and whose principal means of livelihood is income from cultivation of Civil Revision No.2087 of 2010(O & M) 3 such land or partly by income from cultivation of such land and partly by income he gets as wages in cash or kind or partly in cash and partly in kind, in connection with the agricultural occupation he performs.” “debt” means loan taken for agricultural occupations mentioned in clause(a) and includes construction of room for tubewell, purchase of van or cart etc.for transport of produce and all liabilities owning to a creditor including a bank, in cash or kind, secured or unsecured payable under a decree or order of a civil Court or otherwise whether due or not due but it does not include- (i) a debt due to the Central Government; (ii)a debt due to the Life Insurance Corporation of India established under the Life Insurance Corporation Act, 1956 (Parliament Act 3 of 1956), or other Corporations established under any law for the time being in force; (iii)any rent due in respect of any property let out to a debtor; (iv)any liability arising out of breach of trust or any tortuous liability; (v)any liability in respect of wages or remuneration due as salary or otherwise for services rendered; (vi)any liability in respect of maintenance whether under a decree of civil Court or otherwise; (vii)any debt which represents the price of any goods or property purchased by a debtor; (viii)any advance of money given to the debtor by a person as the price of goods or property to be sold later on; (ix)any advance of wages whether in cash or in kind, or partly in cash or partly in kind, made to a debtor at his instance by Civil Revision No.2087 of 2010(O & M) 4 a person in pursuance of a contract of service for a specified period: Provided that the rate of wages settled is not less than the minimum rate of wages fixed by law; and (x)any sum recoverable as arrears of land revenue other than which is due to a bank or a co-operative society; (xi)any debt taken against fixed deposits or for the construction of residential house or for personal car. Section 6 provides that a debtor or any of his creditors may apply to the Board appointed for the area in which the debtor resides or holds any land to effect a settlement between the debtor and his creditors. The aforesaid application is to be filed in writing and is to be signed and verified in such manner as may be prescribed by giving the particulars as mentioned in Section 8 of the aforesaid Act and, therefore, the Board has the power to adjudicate the dispute between parties if a creditor or a debtor, as the case may be, challenges the genuineness or enforceability of any debt. However, proviso of Section 11 provides that a decree or order of a Civil Court shall be conclusive evidence as to the amount of the debt to which the decree relates. Section 17 of the aforesaid Act reads as follows: “Bar of civil suits-No civil Court shall entertain- (a) any suit, appeal or application for revision- (i)to question the validity of any procedure or the legality of any order issued under this Act; or (ii)to recover any debt which is deemed to have been duly discharged under the provisions of this Act; (b) any application to execute a decree passed by a civil Court against a debtor; (c ) any suit for declaration, or any suit or application for Civil Revision No.2087 of 2010(O & M) 5 injunction affecting any proceedings under this Act before the Board.” From the perusal of the various provisions of the Act as aforesaid, it is crystal clear that the aforesaid Act has been enacted for providing relief to the agricultural debtors by settling their disputes with the creditors before the Board as per the procedure and Section 17 (b)of the Act as reproduced above, provides that no civil Court shall entertain any application to execute a decree passed by Civil Court against the debtor but in view of the various provisions as reproduced above before claiming the aforesaid benefit of bar of jurisdiction of the Civil Court, it was incumbent upon the petitioner to fulfil the necessary ingredients(i.e.the debt was for an agricultural occupation as defined and his case falls within the purview of debt as defined) for becoming eligible to take the benefit of the bar of jurisdiction. There is no finding from which it can be inferred that the debt taken by the petitioner was for an agricultural occupation as defined under the provisions of the Act. Neither the petitioner has placed on record any document/evidence to show that he fulfilled the conditions to become eligible for the benefit of the aforesaid provisions of the Act. Petitioner has even failed to mention the basis of decree passed against him and the nature of loan against him. There is nothing on record to suggest that there is any compliance of other provisions of the Act by the petitioner before claiming the bar of jurisdiction of the Civil Court. Even the so-called application filed by the petitioner before the Conciliation Board has not been attached with this petition for the reasons best known to him. Even otherwise, as per the proviso of Section 11 of the Act, a decree of a civil Court is a conclusive evidence as to the amount of the debt to which the decree relates and therefore there is nothing left before the Board to adjudicate with regard to the genuineness of the debt. Civil Revision No.2087 of 2010(O & M) 6 This Court vide its order dated 23.04.2010 has adjourned this petition to enable the petitioner to find out whether any material was placed before the Executing Court apart from taking the mere objection with regard to bar of Section 17 of the Act. Despite the aforesaid adjournment, nothing has been submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner in this regard which means that there was no material before the Executing Court on the basis of which the Executing Court could decide with regard to the genuineness of the objection raised by the petitioner with regard to the jurisdiction of the Civil Court. Even before this Court, the petitioner has failed to place any material with regard to the pendency of his application before the Board regarding settlement of the debt as alleged by him. Moreover, it is nowhere provided in the Act that by merely filing an application under Section 17 of the Act, jurisdiction of the Civil Court to execute a lawful decree will come to an end. Moreover, under Section 6 of the Act, it has been provided that Board in appropriate cases may stay the recovery of debt after hearing the parties till final settlement. There is no such averment made by the petitioner in his objection petition in this regard. The petitioner could have availed the aforesaid remedy in accordance with law. In this view of the matter, I am not inclined to interfere in the impugned order. Dismissed. (RAKESH KUMAR GARG) JUDGE 19.05.2010 neenu