BADRI PRASAD Vs. ADDITIONAL DISTRICT JUDGE DHOLPUR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS writ petition of creditors Badri Prasad and Kailas Chand raises an important question of law whether an Additional District Judge is competent to exercise the power of revision under sec 17 of the Rajasthan Relief of Agricultural Indebtedness Act, 1957 (hereinafter called the Act.

(2.) RESPONDENT No. 3 Phadee filed an application under sec. 6 of the Act in the Debt Relief Court (Munsiff), Dholpur for the determination of his debt. The Debt Relief Court determined the debt to the extent of Rs. 3,798. 75. A revision was filed against the judgment of the Debt Relief Court in the court of the Additional District Judge, Dholpur. The learned Additional District Judge while disposing of the revision application reduced the debt to Rs. 500/ -. It is this judgment of the Additional District Judge that has been challenged in the present writ petition, inter alia, on the ground that the learned Additional District Judge had no jurisdi-tion to entertain and dispose of the revision application under sec. 17 of the Act.

(3.) IT is contended by learned counsel for the respondent that Additional District Judge appointed under the provisions of the Rajasthan Civil Courts Ordinance enjoys the same power of a District Judge and, therefore, for the purposes of sec. 17 of the Act any court within the District presided over by an Additional District Judge should be taken to be a District Court. In support of this contention learned counsel placed reliance on Ganpat Pralhad vs. Mahadeo Paikajee Kolhe (l), Yekewarapu Ramachandra Rao vs. State of Madras (Now Andhra Pradesh) (2) and Bohra Abdul Hussain vs. Pandit Chhaganlal Chaturvedi (3 ).