HARI RAM SONI Vs. DAMDU LAL AHIRWAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner a registered Money Lender was approached by the first respondent for grant of loan. The petitioner acceded to his request and initially granted a loan of Rs. 200/- on 19-8-1991 against security of 58 grams of Silver LACHCHAS' (ornament) to him. Thereafter again a sum of Rs. 600/- was given on loan on 20- 4-2002 by the petitioner to the first respondent against security of 145 grams of Silver 'LACHCHAS'. Out of the total loan amount advanced of Rs. 800/- to him, the first respondent returned Rs. 135/- towards interest and Rs. 85/- towards principal amount; total Rs. 220/-. The petitioner contends that thereafter due to refusal to grant further loan by him, the first respondent felt offended and filed a false case against him.

(2.) As per the averments made in the petition, on 26-6-1993 the petitioner served with a notice bearing heading of 'RAJASWA MAMLE ME NOTICE (NYAYALAY NAZUL ADHIKARI)'. The said notice mentioned the name of petitioner only. The name of first respondent as the other party was not mentioned in the notice. The notice did not accompany copy of application filed by the first respondent under Section 8 (3) of the Madhya Pradesh Anusuchit Jati Tatha Anusuchit Jan Jati Rini Sahayata Adhiniyam, 1967 (for short 'the Adhiniyam'). The petitioner enquired from the process server about the said notice but the process server was ignorant about the facts. On reading of the notice it gave an impression to the petitioner that it had been issued from the Court of NAZUL ADHIKARI which deals in Urban Land Dispute. As the petitioner did not have any Nazul land in Jabalpur, the petitioner endorsed a remark at the back of the notice that there is no Nazul land or case. Similar remark was made by the process server on the notice (Annexure P-4). The petitioner further states that due to such defective notice the petitioner was totally ignorant about the pendency of any case under the Adhiniyam filed by the first respondent against him.

(3.) On 18-5-1994, he received a copy of the order dated 22-2-1994 passed by the Debt Relief Court the second respondent. The said order dated 22-2-1994 was an exparte order directing him to return the ornaments of the first respondent. It also directed return of gold ornaments even, which were never kept by the first respondent. The petitioner was also directed to return the balance amount of Rs. 550/-. On receiving the copy of the said order the petitioner approached to the second respondent by filing a review application for setting aside the ex parte order dated 22-2-1994. The said application was dismissed on 15-6-1994 by the second respondent holding that the petitioner had due notice and he deliberately avoided appearance in the Debt Relief Court. Feeling aggrieved the petitioner filed revision under Section 22 of the Adhiniyam before the Collector, Jabalpur. The said revision was heard and dismissed by the Additional Collector, Jabalpur by order dated 30-3-1995.