BANSHIDHAR Vs. SITA BAI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE learned Single Judge by his order dated February 6, 1986 allowed the writ petition filed by Thaker Mal (deceased) His legal representative is respondent No. 1 and quashed the order Annx. 2 dated October 15, 1981 of the District Judge, Sri Ganganagar passed in revision under Section 17 of the Rajashan Relief of Agricultural Indebtedness Act, 1957 (Act No. XXVIII of 1957) ('the Act' here in) by which he reserved the order of the Debt Relief Court Sri Ganganagar (Civil Judge, Sri Ganganagar) holding that the appellants who were applicants are not agriculturists within the meaning of Section 2(b) of the Act. The Debt Relief Court, after considering the oral and documentary evidence and the definitions of ' agricultrist' in Section 2(b) and that of 'debtor' in Section 2(cc) held that the appellants Bansidhar and Rameshwardas are not agriculturists. The appellants went in revision under Section 17 of the Act. The learned District Judge, Sri Ganganagar while exercising revisional powers under Section 17 of the Act reappreciated the evidence and came to a contrary conclusion from the one arrived at by the Debt Relief Court (Civil Judge) Sri Ganganagar. Aggrieved a writ petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution was filed by the creditor Thaker Mal who was non -applicant before the Debt Relief Court. The learned Single was of the opinion that the learned District Judge should not have interfered with the finding of the Debt Relief Court holding that the appellants are not agriculturists as he has a limited jurisdiction under Section 17 of the Act while hearing revision. In view of this he quashed the order dated October 15,1981 of the District Judge and restored that of the Debt Relief Court (Civil Judge) Sri Ganganagar. The appellants have filed this special appeal under Section 18 of the Rajasthan High Court Ordinance, 1949. We have heard Mr. H.N. Calla learned Counsel for the appellants. He urged that the learned Single Judge has committed an error in interfering with the order of the learned District Judge passed in revision while exercising extraordinary jurisdiction under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution, for, according to him the scope of revision under Section 17 of the Act is wide and the learned District Judge was competent to interfere with the order of the Debt Relief Court as it was covered by Clause (a) of Section 17 of the Act. In support of his submission he has placed reliance on Deepchand v. Surta (1966) ILR XVI Raj 477.

(2.) WE have duly considered the contention of the learned Counsel for the appellants Section 17 of the Act is as follow:

(3.) MR . H.N. Calla, learned Counsel for the appellants, pressed that since the order of the Debt Relief Court holding that the appellants were not agriculturists was contrary to law, the learned District Judge was right in setting aside the former's order.