JUDGMENT
Birendra Prasad Sinha, J.
1. This is an application by the decree-holder whose execution proceeding for realisation of a certain amount has been dropped as having abated under Section 3 (c) of the Bihar Debt Relief Act, 1976 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’).
2. The judgment-debtor opposite party filed a petition in the execution case that he was a marginal farmer and his property could not be sold in execution case according to the provisions of Sub-section (1) of Section 3 of the Act. A prayer was made that he should be exempted from the liability. According to the decree-holder, who filed a rejoinder in the execution case, the judgment-debtor along with his family members and his three sons not only owns a house but had a good business of smithy from which he earned about Rs. 10,000/- to Rs. 15,000/- per year. The decree-holder contended that the judgment-debtor was not saved by the provisions of the Act and, therefore, his petition for exemption should be dismissed.
3. Some evidence was led on behalf of both the parties before the executing court and on consideration of the evidence so led the learned executing court carne to the finding that the judgment-debtor was a marginal farmer as well as a rural artisan within the meaning of the Act and was, therefore, a scheduled debtor. It was therefore, held that the execution proceeding for realisation of the amount in question abated under the provisions of Section 3 of the Act and further proceeding of the execution case was accordingly dropped.
4. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the decree-holder-petitioner submitted that the impugned order passed by the court below dropping the execution case is illegal and must be set aside.
5. Section 3 of the Act provides that notwithstanding anything contained in any other law for the time being in force or in any contract or other instrument having force of law by virtue of any such law, and save as otherwise expressly provided by Section 5 of the Act, every debt incurred by a Scheduled debtor before the commencement of this Act including the amount of interest payable on such debt shall be deemed to have been wholly discharged. It further provides that such debt due from a Scheduled debtor shall not be recoverable from him and a Civil Court shall not entertain any suit or proceeding against a Scheduled debtor for the recovery of such debt or any portion thereof. “Scheduled debtor” according to its definition given in Section 2 means “a person who is a small farmer, or a marginal farmer, or a rural artisan, or an agricultural labourer, who is ordinarily resident in the State of Bihar”. ‘Marginal farmer’ and ‘rural artisan’ have been denned in the Act as follows:–
” ‘marginal farmer’ means a farmer who owns land measuring not more than one acre of irrigated land or two acres of unirrigated land :
Provided that if a marginal farmer belonging to any of the Scheduled Tribes, the maximum area of land to be owned and cultivated for the purposes of this Act will be two acres of irrigated land or four acres of unirrigated land;
‘rural artisan’ is a person who does not hold any agricultural land and whose principal means of livelihood is production or repair of traditional tools, implements and other articles or things used for agriculture or purposes ancillary thereto and also a person who normally earns his livelihood by practising a craft either by his own labour or by the labour of the members of his family in the rural area, and whose annual income does not exceed Rs. 2,400.”
6. The court below has found that the judgment-debtor is a marginal farmer as well as a rural artisan. From the definition of ‘scheduled debtor’ it is apparent that for being a scheduled debtor the person should be either a small farmer or a marginal farmer or a rural artisan or an agricultural labourer. If the person concerned is a marginal farmer and also a rural artisan, then he cannot be deemed to be a scheduled debtor. In view of the finding of the court below itself, therefore, the judgment-debtor-opposite party in this case cannot be held to be a scheduled debtor. The judgment-debtor opposite party is, therefore, not saved by Section 3 of the Act. The execution proceeding, therefore, must proceed against him for the realisation of the amount in question. The impugned order passed by the executing court on 14-2-1978 in execution case No. 83 of 1973 is set aside and this application is allowed. There shall be, however, no order as to costs.