P L D 1952 Dacca 114 (PLP)

Din Muhammad, for Opposite Parties Nos. 1, 2, 5, 7 and 8. K. Shamsul Huda, for Deputy Registrar. IBRAHIM, J.‑

This is an application to revise an order of the District Judge passed under section 40 (A) of the Bengal Agricultural Debtors Act. The only question raised is whether the Debt Settlement Board had jurisdiction to entertain the application filed by Jabiat Hossain on his behalf and on behalf of other opposite parties who are heirs of Makbul Ahmed against whom the petitioner and Bashiruddin, the predecessor‑in‑interest of other petitioners obtained a decree in Rent Suit No. 21 of 1932. In execution of the decree the decree‑holders purchased 1'63 acres of land on the 21st January 1936. Makbul Ahmed filed an application in the Munsif Court of Hatia under the Bengal Money Lenders Act. During the pendency of the case Makbul Ahmed died and the case was dismissed for default. This was in 1941. The opposite party No. 1, Jabiat Hossain then filed the application' before the Debt Settlement Board. The Special Officer allowed the petition and passed an award. An appeal was taken to the Appellate Officer but it was dis missed. An application was thereafter filed before the District Judge of Noakhali. The District Judge dismissed the applica tion being of opinion that the order of dismissal by the Special Appellate Officer was based on fact and there was no reason to interfere with the appellate order. Mr. Mofakher contends that the Special Appellate Officer committed an error and the learned District judge has concurred in it. The point that has been raised in this Court, namely, that the Pebt Settlement Board had no jurisdiction to entertain the application in view of the application under the Bengal Money Lenders Act was taken before the Appellate Officer; the Appellate Officer dis missed the contention in these words About the ground that there was an application under the Bengal Money Lenders Act, 1940 (Bengal Act X of 1940). I see from the copy of the suit register that the case was dismissed for default as the plaintiff died. Hence the case was not actually entertained within the meaning of section 37‑A (3) as the Court did not apply its mind to the decision or merits of the case. Mr. Mofakher's contention is that the view taken by the Appellate Officer was wrong. Section 37‑A provides; No Board shall entertain an application under sub-section (2), if such application relates to a debt in respect of which a Civil Court has previously entertained a suit instituted or an application made under the provisions of the Bengal Money Lenders Act, 1940. Mr. Mofakher's contention is that the learned Special Appellate Officer misconceived the meaning of the word "entertained". He has cited in support of his contention the case of Sreemati Charubala Das and another v. Amulya Kumar Bose and another 49 C W N 156, where Mukherjee and Ellis, JJ., took the view that "To entertain is to admit to consideration, and it is not necessary that a matter should be heard and decided by a Civil Court under the Bengal Money Lenders Act before it can operate as a bar to a proceeding under section 37‑A of the Bengal Agricultural Debtors Act." I find no reason to disagree with the view taken in this case. If an application is admitted for consideration it is enter tained within the meaning of section 37‑A (3). But then Mr. Din Muhammad points out that the Civil Court had no juris diction in this case to entertain an application at all because the decree in execution of which the lands were sold was a rent decree. Mr. Mofakher concedes that an application under the Bengal Money Lenders Act could not lie as the decree was a rent decree but he contends that it is not material whether the Civil Court had or had not jurisdiction to entertain the applica tion. His view is that if the Civil Court, whether it has jurisdiction or not, in fact entertains an application under the Bengal Money Lenders Act in respect of any debt, no application will lie before the Debt Settlement Board in respect of it. I do not think that this view can be accepted. An application which the Court has no jurisdiction to entertain cannot be said to be entertained in the eye of law. The bar of section 37‑A (3) applies to those cases only where the Civil Court has jurisdiction to entertain and entertains application under the Bengal Money Lenders Act and has no application to cases in which the Civil Court has no jurisdiction to entertain application under the Bengal Money Lenders Act. The Rule is discharged with costs. A. H. Rule discharged.