PRITAM SINGH Vs. BHANU RAM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS writ petition has been filed for quashing the order of the learned District Judge, Sriganganagar dated May 9, 1989, passed in Civil Revision No. 50/86 by which he allowed the revision petition and passed decree against the surety-petitioner also.

(2.) IT is contended by the learned counsel for the surety-petitioner that the learned District Judge, Sriganganagar was not justified to interfere in the revision petition filed under Section 17 of the Rajasthan Relief of Agricultural Indebtedness Act, 1957 as the scope of section 17 is very limited. He relied upon Banshidhar vs. Sitabai (1 ). He further contended that the learned Debt Relief Court categorically held that the petitioner put his signature on the agreement Ex. 3 as an attesting witness and not as a surety, the word 'surety' was subsequently written in the margin of the document, it was a finding of fact and it could not be disturbed in revision by the learned District Judge.

(3.) THESE facts leave no doubt that the judgment of the Debt Relief Court was contrary to law and the learned District Judge was fully justified to modify it. Thus there is no force in the writ petition.