LAWS(RAJ)-2009-9-275

SHANKAR Vs. DISTT. JUDGE, DHOLPUR

Decided On September 29, 2009
SHANKAR Appellant
V/S
Distt. Judge, Dholpur Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This writ petition has been filed by the petitioner challenging the order dated 10.09.1999 passed by the learned District Judge, Dholpur in Civil Revision No. 3/1997, whereby he had allowed the revision petition as also the application filed by the applicant-respondent No. 3, under Sec. 6 of the Rajasthan Relief of Agricultural indebtedness Act, 1957 (here-in-after referred to as the 'Act of 1957') and set-aside the order dated 12.03.1997 passed by the learned Civil Judge (Sr. Dn.) and Debt Relief Court, Dholpur in DRA No. 11/1991.

(2.) The respondent No. 3, Devi Prasad Mittal had filed an application under Sec. 6 of the Act of 1957 before the Debt Relief Court cum Civil Judge (SD), Dholpur with the averments that the petitioner is an agriculturist to whom he had advanced a loan of Rs. 15,000.00 (Rs. Fifteen thousand only) with the interest @ of Rs. 1.50 paise per month. The respondent No. 3 had opened an account in the 'Bahi' (Book of Accounts) and the petitioner had put his signature on it. Further it was averred that the petitioner did not pay the said amount of loan, as per the terms and conditions, and a total amount of Rs. 19,450.00 became due against him. Accordingly, it was prayed for determination and recovery of the amount. On having received the notice of the Debt Relief Court, the petitioner filed a detailed reply denying all the averments of the application and he had specifically stated that he neither took any loan nor he had executed any document nor had put any signature or thumb impression on the account book. Further the petitioner had stated in the reply that since, the respondent No. 3 does not have any license under the Money Lending Act, therefore, his application before the Court concerned, was not maintainable. Besides this, the petitioner had also raised other objections before the Court concerned.

(3.) On the basis of the pleadings of the parties, the learned Debt Relief Court had framed five issues for adjudicating the matter. The relevant issue for the purpose of deciding the present writ petition is issue No. (1) which is as follows-