Deedar Singh vs Ram Bheja Singh

As stated by the learned District Judge this is a suit for the sale of mortgaged property house and shop, on the basis of a mortgage deed and the realization of decree also from the person and other property of the defendant on the strength of a stipulation in the mortgage deed that the defendant's person and other property would be liable for the mortgage money. An objection was taken by the defendant to the trial of the suit as an ordinary suit it being pleased that it is one governed by the provisions of Agriculturists' Relief Regulation. The learned District Judge has held that such suits have been exempted from the application of the Agriculturists' Relief Regulation. The defendant has come to this court with a revision application praying that the order o0f the District Judge should be set aside.

There is a preliminary objection that the order of the lower court being of an interlocutory nature is not one that can be revised under section 115

of the Coe of Civil Procedure. Next it is urged that the lower court is wrong in holding that although the defendant is an agriculturist this suit for the recovery of money against him is not governed by the provisions of the Agriculturists' Relief Regulation. This revision application has been referred by one of us to a Bench consisting of two Judges.

It is true that this court is always reluctant to interfere in the exercise of extraordinary revisional jurisdiction with interlocutory orders, so what the petitioner has got to make out in such an application is that a case has been decided within the meaning of the term as used in the aforesaid section.

It has, however, been the practice of this court to treat every decision relating to questions of jurisdiction, as a decision of the case so far as that point is concerned and this court has always entertained application in revision by parties aggrieved with the orders passed. As remarks in the order of reference it is fairly common to her applications to revise orders declaring or refusing to declare a person an agriculturist within the meaning of the term as used in the Agriculturists' Relief Regulation. The reasons for the course adopted is obvious. In cases in which a court refused to exercise jurisdiction it is obvious that it has decided the case so far as it is concerned and the Legislature has attached such importance to such an order that an appeal has been allowed from an order returning a plaint for presenting to a court of competent jurisdiction. Likewise when the court overrules an objection and decides that it has jurisdiction to hear the case and proceeds to hear it, it follows that it has decided the case in the sense indicated above. We, therefore, overrule the preliminary objection.

The learned District Judge has recorded good reasons in his judgment for holding that such suits by a mortgagee for recovery of principal mortgage money and other dues by sale of property mortgaged are not ordinary money suits of the type contemplated by the Agriculturists' Relief Act, which appears to be the model from which our status has mutatis mutandis been copied, they have been entirely excluded from the provisions of our

Regulation, It is presumed to decide what will happen, in the event of the success of the plaintiff if the property mortgaged is sold and is not sufficient to discharge the amount decree. It will then be for the decreeholder to apply to the court for the recovery of the balance by sale of other property of the judgmentdebtor. At that stage the court will go into the question of the balance being legally recoverable from the judgmentdebtor.

It will be at that time that the judgmentdebtor can urge what he is now urging before the court regarding the assistance that he wishes to drive from

the provisions of the Agriculturists"" Relief Regulation.

The application fails and is dismissed without any order as to costs.