LEGAL REPRESENTATIVE OF DALIPA RAM Vs. SOHAN SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This writ petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India is filed by the petitioner being aggrieved with the judgment dated 06.03.2000 passed by District Judge, Sri Ganganagar (for short 'the revisional court' hereinafter) in Civil Revision No.30/98, whereby the revisional court has partly accepted the revision petition filed by the original petitioner Dalipa Ram, who has now died and is being represented through his legal representative.

(2.) The above mentioned revision was filed by the petitioner being aggrieved with the judgment dated 14.07.1998 passed by the Debt Relief Court and Civil Judge (SD) Raisinghnagar (for short 'the trial court' hereinafter) in D.R.C. No.38/89, whereby the trial court while accepting the application filed on behalf of respondent - Sohan Singh under section 6(2) of Rajasthan Relief of Agricultural Indebtedness Act, 1957 (for short 'the Act of 1957' hereinafter) directed the petitioner to repay the debt amount of Rs.18528/- along with interest at the rate of 9% per annum amounting to Rs.5003/-, total Rs.23531/- in two annual instalments.

(3.) Learned counsel for the petitioner has assailed the validity of the judgments passed by the revisional court as well as the trial court while arguing that though both the courts below have given a specific finding that there is overwriting in the Pronote (Ex.1) and the Receipt (Ex.2) but held that the said overwriting will not effect the claim of the respondent. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the findings of this effect arrived at by both the courts below are illegal because once it is proved that if an alternation is made in the material part of the document after its execution without the consent of the party liable under it, the said document is rendered void.