MODILAL Vs. CHATRA RAM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS writ petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India has been filed by the petitioners on 27. 1. 1988 against the respondents with the prayer that by an appropriate writ, order or direction, the judgment (Annex. 2) dated 7. 10. 1987 passed by the learned Addl. District Judge, Bali by which he accepted the revision petition of the respondent No. 1 Chatra Ram (hereinafter referred to as "the deceased)". (now represented by his LRs.) and set aside the judgment and decree dated 2. 12. 1982 passed by the learned Dept Relief Court (Munsiff Magistrate, Bali) by which learned Dept Relief Court accepted the claim of the petitioners filed under Section 6 of the Rajasthan Relief of Agricultural Indebtedness Act, 1957 (hereinafter referred to as "the Act of 1957") for Rs. 800/- in favour of the petitioner No. 1 Modi Lal and for Rs. 1091/- in favour of the petitioner No. 2 Kheta Ram, be quashed and set aside.

(2.) IT arises in the following circumstances :- The petitioner No. 1 Modi Lal advanced a loan of Rs. 800/- to deceased Chatra Ram for purchase of an ox and in lieu of that, he executed receipt and pronote (Ex. 1) on 8. 7. 1973 in favour of the petitioner No. 1 Modi Lal. Since the amount was not paid by the deceased Chatra Ram and since he was an agriculturist, a claim was filed by the petitioner No. 1 Modi Lal against the deceased Chatra Ram under Section 6 of the Act of 1957 before the Debt Relief Court (Munsiff Magistrate, Bali ). The deceased Chatra Ram filed a reply and disputed the factum of execution of pronote and receipt. During the pendency of the application of the petitioner No. 1 Modi Lal, another claim under Section 6 of the Act of 1957 was filed by the petitioner No. 2 Kheta Ram and the case of the petitioner No. 2 Kheta Ram was that deceased Chatra Ram obtained a loan of Rs. 1091/- in cash and executed pronote (Ex. 2) in favour of the petitioner No. 2 Kheta Ram. Thereafter, evidence was led by both the parties before the Debt Relief Court (Munsiff Magistrate, Bali ). After hearing both the parties, the learned Debt Relief Court (Munsiff Magistrate, Bali) through judgment and decree dt. 2. 12. 1982 (Annex. 1) decreed the claim of both the petitioners against the deceased Chatra Ram in the manner as indicated above. Aggrieved from the said judgment and decree dated 2. 12. 1982 (Annex. 1) passed by the learned Dept Relief Court (Munsiff Magistrate, Bali), a revision was filed by the deceased Chatra Ram before the Court of Addl. District Judge, Sirohi as at that time, the jurisdiction was with the Court of Addl. District Judge, Sirohi and later-on, a separate Court of Addl. District Judge was created at Bali and thus, the case was first transferred to the Court of District Judge, Pali and later on, it was transferred to the Court of Addl. District Judge, Bali. After hearing both the parties, the learned Addl. District Judge, Bali through his judgment dated 7. 10. 1987 (Annex. 2) accepted the revision of the deceased Chatraram and set aside the judgment and decree (Annex. 1) dated 2. 12. 1982 passed by the learned Debt Relief Court (Munsiff Magistrate, Bali) holding inter-alia :- (i) That signatures of the deceased Chatra Ram on pronotes Ex. 1 and Ex. 2 were found doubtful. (ii) That petitioners have failed to prove execution of pronotes Ex. 1 and Ex. 2 in their favour by the deceased Chatra Ram. Aggrieved from the said judgment dated 7. 10. 1987 (Annex. 2) passed by the learned Addl. District Judge, Bali, this writ petition has been filed by the petitioners.

(3.) A bare perusal of the above definition clearly reveals that it is nowhere mentioned in Section 17 of the Act of 1957 that the District Judge would be that person, who presides over the principal court or civil original jurisdiction of the Judicial District created by the Government. This is one of the aspects of the matter.