AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
S. Suryamurthy, J.—This civil revision petition is directed against the order of the learned District Munsif, Thiruvaiyaru, dismissing a petition
filed by the first defendant to stay the trial of O.S. No, 105 of 1973. The petition, was filed u/s 4 of Tamil Nadu Ordinance No. 1 of 1975. The
contention of the first defendant was that as he is a cultivating tenant and as the suit is not only for recovery of possession of the suit land, but also
for profits past and future, the suit cannot be proceeded with for the time being because of the provisions of Section 4 of Tamil Nadu Ordinance
No. 1 of 1975. Section 4 of Tamil Nadu Ordinance No. 1 of 1975 reads as follows:
Stay of proceedings: (1) All further proceedings in suits and application of the nature mentioned in Section 3 in which relief is claimed against an
agriculturist, not being proceedings for the amendment of pleadings or for the addition, substitution, or the striking off of parties, but otherwise
inclusive of proceedings consequent on orders or decrees made in appeals, revision petitions, or applications for review, shall, subject to the next
succeeding sub-section, stand stayed until the expiry of a year from the date of the commencement of this Ordinance.
Suits and applications of the nature contemplated in Section 3 alone are thus stayed by reason of the provisions of Section 4. Section 3 of the
Ordinance lays down that:
No suit for the recovery of a debt shall be instituted, no application for the execution of a decree for payment of money passed in a suit for the
recovery of a debt shall be made, and no suit or application for the eviction of a tenant on the ground of non-payment of a debt shall be instituted
or made against any agriculturist in any civil or revenue Court before the expiry of a year from the date of the commencement of this Ordinance .
In the instant case the suit is not for recovery of a debt. The suit is for recovery of possession of the lands with mesne profits, past and future.
Mesne profits are not debts within the meaning of the Ordinance because in the proviso to Section 3 of the Ordinance it is provided:
that a suit for possession of land shall not be deemed to be a suit for recovery of a debt by reason merely of mesne profits being also prayed for in
such suit.
Hence the Order of the learned District Munsif is correct. It is therefore confirmed and the Civil Revision Petition is dismissed. No costs.