1. The above Second Appeal is directed against the order of the learned Assistant Judge, Dhulia, dated June 11, 1976 by which the learned Assistant Judge refused to interfere with the order passed by the learned Civil Judge, Senior Division, Dhulia, on September 30, 1972, in Regular Darkhast No. 46 of 1972, filed by the decree-holder for recovery of Rs. 3,018,73, under the decree passed on January 26, 1971, in Regular Civil Suit No- 348 of 1969.
2. The only point which was raised by the judgment-debtor was that his liability in respect of the decretal debt was extinguished under the provisions of the Maharashtra Debt Relief Act 1975 and the Maharashtra Debt Relief Rules 1975, with effect from August 22, 1975 and the decree was, therefore, in-executable.
3. The point was not raised before the learned Civil Judge, Senior Division; but was raised for the first time in appeal, which appears to have been filed and entertained in the year 1978. The learned Assistant Judge came to the conclusion that the Debt Relief Act did not apply as it was a decree in respect of the claim arising out of a contract which was a transaction not connected with the money-lending within the meaning of clause (g) of Section 22; and hence the objection raised by the judgment-debtor was not tenable. He therefore dismissed the appeal. The said decision is challenged in the above Second Appeal by the judgment-debtor.
4. Mr. Desai, the learned counsel appearing for the Appellant, submitted relying on Section 11 of the Maharashtra Debt Relief Act, 1975 that the civil court had no jurisdiction to decide whether the decree was in respect of a claim arising out of the contract or transaction not connected with money-lending within the meaning of Clause (g) of Section 22.
Section 11 (1) runs as follows:
"No civil court shall have jurisdiction to settle, decide or deal with any question which is by or under this Chapter required to be settled, decided or dealt with by the Authorised Officer."
5. Mr. Desai was unable to point out any provision in Chapter III (in which Section 11 occurs), which requires the authorised officer to decide the question u/s 22 (g). Hence his contention that Section 11 (1) bars the jurisdiction of the civil court from considering whether the claim arose out of the contract or out of a transaction not connected with money-lending must be rejected.
6. The learned Assistant Judge has properly considered the law and has held that the decree was in respect of a certain transaction of advances of money and there was nothing to show that it was a transaction in connection with money-lending. The provision of the Ordinance or the Act did not therefore, extinguish the liability of the judgment-debtor. I do not find any error in the said decision.
7. The Second Appeal is dismissed with
8. Appeal dismissed.
