Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

7. By Section 2, Sub-section (6) of the Act, "debt" has been defined as follows:

"(6) "debt" means any pecuniary liability, whether payable presently or in future, or under a decree or order of a civil or revenue court or otherwise, or whether ascertained or to be ascertained, which, (a) in the case of displaced person who has left or been displaced from his place of residence in any area now forming part of west Pakistan, was incurred before he came to reside in any area now forming part of India; (b) in the case or a. displaced person who, before and after the 15th day of August, 1947, has been residing in any area now forming part of 'India, was incurred before' the said date on the security of any immovable property situate in, the territories now forming part of West Pakistan :

19. We are in complete agreement with the view, expressed by the majority of the Full Bench of the Punjab High Court as stated above. It may be pointed out that under the present Act, Section 40 gives a right of appeal in certain circumstances to the High Court and if the Tribunal commits any error in deciding any of the matters mentioned in Section 9 of the Act, it is always open to a party to the proceedings to appeal to the High Court. It follows, therefore, that as soon as the application was made under Section 5 of the Act to the Tribunal constituted under Section 4, the consequences laid down in Section 15, ensued, and it was not open to the civil court to decide the question as to whether the applicant under Section 5 was a displaced debtor within the meaning of the Act or that the subject matter of the claim in the civil court was or was not a "debt" as defined under the Act. Section 9 makes it abundantly clear that the only authority that can determine whether a person is a displaced person or not and whether a debt is due by him, which debt falls within the definition of the Act, is the Tribunal set up under Section 4 of the Act and not the civil court. In this view of the matter the learned Munsif acted illegally and with material irregularity in embarking upon a determination of the question that the matter in dispute before him was not covered by the definition of "debt" under the Act and in holding that the consequences laid down, in Section 15 of the Act did not ensue.

In that case K filed an application under Section 10 of the Displaced Persons (Debts Adjustment) Act of 1951 before the Tribunal constituted under the Act, claiming partnership account from M and others who were his partners on the basis of the partnership having been dissolved on a certain date and claiming moneys to be found due and payable to him on taking such accounts. The Tribunal came to the conclusion that the claim made by K was a claim to a liability which was not a pecuniary liability or, to put it in a different language, the claim made, by K was not a claim to a debt as defined by the Act, and although the claim was made against a displaced person the claim was not that a debt was due by the displaced person.

21. We think we are not called upon to determine such a question, because here there is not an appeal before us under Section 40 of the Displaced Persons (Debts Adjustment) Act from a decision of the Tribunal. It is a revision against an order of the Munsif who acted illegally and with material irregularity after assuming jurisdiction to determine a matter over which he had no jurisdiction. Therefore, even if the Munsif's view on the question as to whether the claim in the present suit was clearly not a debt as defined in the Displaced Persons (Debts Adjustment) Act is assumed to be correct, that conclusion cannot be given effect to because of the limitations placed over the Munsif under the Act and because his decision was given over a point which he was not competent to decide.