GUJAR MAL Vs. BHAGIRATH MAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner before me is a decree holder in whose favour a money decree was passed on 25 -1 -77 by the Additional Munsif and Judicial Magistrate No. 2, Alwar. The petitioner applied for the execution of this decree and it was transferred for execution to the court of Munsif and Judicial Magistrate, Kotputli. In this execution the decree holder attached three shops belonging to the non -petitioner. During the pendency of this execution application, the non -petitioner moved an application under Section 6 of the Rajasthan Relief of Agricultural Indebtedness Act (here in after referred to as the Act). The Debt Relief Court admitted this application with the result that the execution proceedings were abated by order dated 23rd March, 1981. Thereafter proceedings under Section 6 of the Act continued before the Debt Relief Court and ultimately this application was dismissed on 16th September, 1982. Then the petitioner moved an application before the executing court for the revival of the execution but this application of the petitioner was rejected by the Court on 9th December, 1983, holding that the execution proceedings once abated could not be revived because abatement under the provisions of the Act had the same meaning as abatement under Order 22 of the Code of Civil Procedure. The learned Munsif in arriving at this conclusion relied upon 1964 RLW 442 Karan See v. Basti Chand. The petitioner moved a review application before the same court on the ground that the decision reported in Karan See v. Basti Chand had been disapproved by a Division Bench of this Court in 1969 WLN (1) 403 Pyare Lal and Ors. v. Rani Raman Kumari and Ors. In this case, it was held that the civil court can revive the proceedings abated under Section 5(l)(i) or Section 6(6)(ii) of the Act, if the order of admission or the intimation under Section 6 has been set -aside by the Debt Relief Court itself or by any other Court competent to set aside that order. In view of this decision, the petitioner wanted the executing Court to review its decision and revive the execution. However, the executing court by order dated 1st March, 1985 dismissed the application for review. It is this order, passed on the review application, against which the petitioner has preferred this revision.

(2.) THE contention of the learned Counsel for the petitioner is that the learned lower court has placed reliance upon a decision of this court which has been subsequently not followed and as such there was ground for reviewing the order passsed on 9th December, 1983, but the court refused to exercise its jurisdiction and has, therefore, committed a material irregularity which deserves to be set -aside in this revision petition.

(3.) I shall first take up the preliminary objection raised about the maintainability of this revision. The learned Counsel for the non -petitioner has drawn my attention to Order 47 CPC which provides for three stages in the hearing of review application. The first stage is when the application is rejected by the court without even issuing notice to the other party. If the Court proceeds to issue a notice to the other party calling it to show cause as to why the review application should not be granted, then, the second stage is reached when the review application may be admitted or rejected. After hearing the other side, if the review application is rejected the matter ends. The third stage is reached when the rule is made absolute and the case is reheard on the merits and may result in repetition of the former decree or the same may be varied. Reference may be made to 1906 ILR (3) Bombay 56 which has been quoted at length in the decision in Parma Lal and Ors. v. Nand Lal and Ors. . At this stage I may also refer to rule 7 of Order 47 CPC. It provides that an order of the Court rejecting the application for review shall not be appealable but an order granting an application may be objected to at once by an appeal from the order granting the same or in an appeal against the decree or order finally passed.