KARANSEE Vs. SONSINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is an application of one Karansee under Art. 226 of the Constitution of India. The allegations of the petitioner are that he instituted a suit for a sum of Rs. 1398/-against the opposite party Son Singh in the court of Munsif Jalore on the 22nd of August 1955 and obtained a decree for the said sum on the 5th of December, 1956. The opposite party, it is said, went in appeal which was dismissed on the 31st of January, 1959 by the court of Civil Judge, Jalore. The opposite party then made an application in the Debt Relief Court, Jalore, on the 3rd of November, 1959 and he mentioned the decree obtained by the petitioner as one of the debts in the said petition. The Debt Relief Court decided that it had no jurisdiction to go behind the said decree of a civil court and gave its judgment on the 2nd of June 1960 and it dismissed the petition on this ground. The opposite party then went in revision to the court of the District Judge, Balotra who held that the Debt Relief Court was competent to go behind the decree and adjudicate the petition under the Rajasthan Relief of Agricultural Indebtedness Act, 1957 (Act No. 28 of 1957) hereinafter referred to as the "act" in accordance with its provisions. He, therefore, remanded the case on the 25th of February, 1961 with a direction to go into the debts and to take proceedings in the matter as provided under sec. 10 of the Act. The petitioner has come to this Court and has challenged the order of the District Judge on the following grounds: (1) The Debt Relief Court has no jurisdiction to go behind a decree of a civil court passed before the making of the petition. (2) An appeal was pending from the decree of the Munsif at the time the Debt Relief Act came into force and as Son Singh had failed to make an application within six months of the coming into force of the Act, he was precluded by sec. 5 (3) from invoking the aid of the Debt Relief Court. (3) Even if it may be assumed that the Debt Relief Court had power to go behind the decree of a civil court, it cannot question the findings of fact arrived at by the civil court and the Debt Relief Court, therefore, could not enter into the question of payment of the suit debt because this question was agitated and determined in the previous suit.

(2.) THE non-petitioner has not filed any reply and no one appeared on his behalf at the time of the hearing of the writ petition. Mr. Madhusudan Narain and Mr. Sardar Singh filed their powers on behalf of the opposite party, but Mr. Sardar Singh appeared at the time of the close of the arguments in the case and he prayed for adjournment of the hearing on the ground that Mr. Madhusudan Narain had gone out on account of his son's illness, but his prayer was not accepted for the reason that the request was made not at the beginning of the hearing but was addressed at its fag end. Had the learned counsel any such request to make, it was expected of him to make such a prayer before the hearing was taken up. After the Court had spent two hours of its time, such a request was not considered fit for consideration.