Manager, Nator Raj Wards' Estate v. Geda Bewa And Ors. Opposite Party.

Mukherjea, J.:— This is a Reference made by the Munsif of Nator under Or. 46 of the Code of Civil Procedure, and he has invited our opinion on a question of law arising under the Bengal Agricultural Debtors Act 1935 (Bengal Act VII of 1935).

2. A rent suit was filed in the Court of the Munsif, by the Manager, Nator Raj Ward's Estate, against certain tenants on April 12th, 1940, and rent was claimed for the years 1343 to Pous, 1346 B.S After the suit was instituted, the Defendants approached the Debt Settlement Board at Kharabari and notice was issued by the latter under sec. 34 of the Bengal Agricultural Debtors Act, requesting the Munsif to stay all further proceedings in connection with the suit.

3. In pursuance of this notice, the Munsif made an order of stay on May, 22nd, 1940. In July, 1940, the Bengal Agricultural Debtors Act was amended, and under sec. 2, cl. (8) of the amended Act, the word “debt” includes liabilities incurred prior to January 1st, 1940. As a liability incurred subsequent to January 1st, 1940, is no longer a debt within the meaning of the Bengal Agricultural Debtors Act, and the suit filed by the Plaintiff included a claim of rent for Pous last of 1346 B.S which had accrued due by the middle of January, 1940, the Plaintiff made an application to the Munsif, praying that the stay order might be vacated at least with regard to that portion of the claim which was not a debt within the meaning of the amended Act. As the Court entertained a doubt as to whether it was permissible in law to stay a suit in part, which might involve the passing of two decrees in the same suit, he has referred the matter for our opinion under Or. 46, r. 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure.

4. We do not think that in the circumstances of the present case, the questions formulated by the Munsif at all arise. The rent suit undoubtedly included a claim for rent for periods both anterior and subsequent to January 1st, 1940, but Mr. Rama Prosad Mookerjee has placed before us the papers of the Debt Settlement Board, which would go to show that the application to the Debt Settlement Board for the settlement of debts under sec. 8 of the Bengal Agricultural Debtors Act did include claims for both the periods. In fact, the entire claim made by the Plaintiff in the rent suit is shown as one item of debt in the application under sec. 8. That being the position, under sec. 20 of the amended Act, it is the Debt Settlement Board which has the exclusive jurisdiction to decide whether the liability is a debt or not. Till the matter is decided by the Board, the Civil Court has nothing further to do except to stay all further proceedings in the suit under sec. 34 of the Act. The question of partial stay of suit could arise, if the claim for the period subsequent to January 1st, 1940, was not before the Debt Settlement Board at all, or if the latter expressly decided not to deal with this portion of the claim as not being a debt within the meaning of the Act.

5. Let this opinion be sent to the Munsif of Nator.

Biswas, J.:— I agree.

C.C