PREM CHAND Vs. RAJENDRA SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) BY this revision petition an order dt. 28. 8. 2000 of the Civil Judge (JD) Ajmer East whereby review petition under Order 47 Rule 1 CPC was partly allowed for adding word "till realization" in the decree & judgment in respect of interest, has been challenged by defendant Prem Chand.

(2.) IT is an admitted fact that the learned trial Court had decreed the plaintiff's suit alongwith interest @ 12% p. a. under issue No. 5 in the main suit. But, the plaintiff (respondent) moved a review petition under Order 47 Rule 1 CPC claiming 18% instead of 12% p. a. on the decretal amount so also for specifying the period of interest. In reply to the said review petition it was the case on behalf of the defendant by raising an objection that the plaintiff ought to have resorted to the remedy under the Rajasthan Relief of Agricultural Indebtedness Act, 1957 for short "the Act" instead of having filed the suit under Order 37 Rule 1 CPC.

(3.) HENCE, in my considered opinion, I do not find that the learned trial Court while deciding plaintiff's petition for review of decree dt. 28. 4. 2000 has committed any illegality or material irregularity or has failed to exercise jurisdiction so vested or have exercised jurisdiction not vested in it by law by rejecting the plea of defendant petitioner as to the applicability of the aforesaid Act. Thus, the learned trial Court has rightly held that for the recovery of amount under decree, taken by the defendant petitioner provisions under Order 37 Rule 1 CPC are attracted. That apart, admittedly neither any appeal has been filed nor the impugned decree has ever been challenged till date. Even judgment & decree dated 28. 4. 2000 of the trial Court have not been produced nor shown during the course of arguments nor any reference thereof has been made in the memo of revision petition which lacks of many facts & circumstances and pleadings taken before the trial Court. So on this ground also, this revision petition is not maintainable.