NANDA Vs. DISTRICT JUDGE JAIPUR DIST JAIPUR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS writ petition of peti-tioner Nanda arises out of the following circumstances: an application under Section 6 of the Raiasthan Relief of Agricultural indebtedness Act, 1957 (hereinafter called the Act) was filed by creditor kanhaiyalal, husband of respondent No. 3 Smt, Gulab Devi, in the Court of Civil Judge, Jaipur District. Jaipur, alleging that Rs. 4,500/- were advanced by the creditor by way of loan to petitioner Nanda on the basis of a pronote and a receipt executed by the debtor in favour of the creditor and as the debtor was an agriculturist therefore, it was prayed that the loan advanced to Nanda may be determined under the provisions of the Act. Petitioner Nanda denied to have received any loan from Kanhaiyalal and executed any pronote in favour of the creditor. The debt Relief Court after recording the statements of the creditor kanhaiyalal and the scribe Shivdayal and also examining the witnesses produced by the debtor came to the con-elusion that debtor Nanda did not receive any loan by executing the pronote or the receipt in favour of creditor Kanhaiyalal and therefore, it dismissed the application filed by kanhaiyalal.

(2.) HAVING felt aggrieved by the order of the learned Civil Judge, Kanhaiyalal deceased filed a revision petition in the Court of the District Judge. Jaipur District. Jaipur. The learned Judge, after hearing the parties, set aside the order of the debt Relief Court holding that the pronote was executed by the debtor in favour of the creditor and the case was remanded to the Debt Relief Court with a direction that the Court may proceed to determine the debt in accordance with, the provisions of the Act. This judgment of the learned District Judge has been challenged by the debtor-petitioner, inter alia, on the ground that the facts determined by the Debt Relief Court about the execution of the pronote in favour of the creditor could not be set aside by the learned District Judge while exercising jurisdiction under Section 17 of the Act which, according to learned counsel for the petitioner, is a very limited jurisdiction. Besides this objection, various other objections were taken by the petitioner to impugn tine (judgment of the learned district Judge, but I need not discuss them here as this petition can be disposed of by deciding the objection regarding the scope of jurisdiction of the learned Judge under Section 17 of the Act.

(3.) LEARNED counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent has argued that the judgment of the learned District Judge is a well-reasoned judgment and the evidence produced by the debtor before the Debt Relief Court has been rightly rejected by the said Court which the learned District Judge had the power to do while exercising his revisional jurisdiction under Section 17 of the Act; the inferences, therefore, drawn by the learned District Judge cannot be said to be perverse and this Court in the exercise of its extraordinary jurisdiction should not interfere with the judgment of the revisional Court.