GULAB KANWAR Vs. UCO BANK HARSORE DISTT NAGAUR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) I have heard the learned counsel for the parties at length.

(2.) THE learned counsel appearing on behalf of the non- petitioner Bank raised a preliminary objection that the instant revision is not maintainable as according to him the order passed under sub-section (1) of Section 13 of the Rajasthan Agricultural Credit Operations (Removal of Difficulties) Act, 1974 (in short 'the Act of 1974') assumes the character of a decree passed by the Civil Court, therefore, an appeal lies against the order passed by the prescribed authority before (he District Judge within the meaning of Section 3 read with Sec. 96 of C. P. C.

(3.) IN my considered opinion the revisionist was perfectly justified to invoke the jurisdiction of this Court u/s. 115 CPC inasmuch as earlier it is true that the order passed u/s, 47 CPC was included with the ambit of a decree as defined under sub- section (2) of Section 2 of CPC but by Amending Act No. 104 of 1976 the words and figures of Section 47 are omitted, therefore, in my opinion if any objection is filed under said section by the revisionist before the prescribed authority then against its rejection he is justified to file a revision before this Court and an argument contrary to it is not acceptable to me. The facts and circumstances of the case of Daulat Ram (supra) are not attracted in the present case. So the preliminary objection raised by the learned counsel for the non-petitioner Bank is hereby over ruled and I propose to decide the present revision on merit.