BADRI NARAYAN Vs. KHYALI RAM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) BY the instant writ petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner seeks to quash the judgment (Annex. 1) dated 02.04.2008 passed by Additional District Judge, Sri Karanpur on a revision petition filed by the petitioner against the judgment and decree dated 25.01.2007 (Annex. 2) passed by Debt Relief Court, Srikaranpur, district Ganganagar. I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner at length. Carefully gone through the judgment passed by Debt Relief Court dt. 25.01.2007 (Annex. 2) as also order dt. 02.04.2008 (Annex. 1) passed by revisional Court on a revision filed by the petitioner.

(2.) IT is contended by learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner is not an agriculturist and therefore, the Debt Relief Court has no jurisdiction to entertain the application filed by the respondent No. 1 under Section 6(2) of the Rajasthan Relief of Agricultural Indebtedness Act, 1957 (for short the Act of 1957 hereinafter). It is further contended that Sub -section (2) of Section 6 of the Act of 1957 provides that such an application praying for the determination of the debts outstanding against a debtor, may also be filed by his Creditor or his surety, whether such debtor is liable for such debts individually or jointly with another person. An application can be made by the persons enumerated under Sub -section (3) of Section 6 of the Act of 1957 i.e. an agriculturist or a member of a scheduled caste or a scheduled tribe. Learned counsel for the petitioner has relied on two decisions of this Court in Firm Jani Khushalji Jethaji vs. Maharaj Bhopal Singh,, RLW 1964 page 118 and in Rao Bahadur Moolchand Nemichand vs. District Judge, Pratapgarh, : RLW 1965 page 149.

(3.) ON a revision, the revisional Court vide order (Annex. 1), on re -appreciation of the material placed before the Debt Relief Court and pleadings of the parties and the issues framed therein before that Court, came to the conclusion that the conclusion arrived at by the Debt Relief Court cannot be said to be erroneous and dismissed the revision petition. The contention raised by the counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner is not an agriculturist is for the first time before this Court in a supervisory jurisdiction of this Court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. The question as to whether the petitioner is an agriculturist or not, is a question of fact and has to be decided on evidence.