RAM RAKH Vs. CREDITORS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THESE ten cases are references under sec. 113 of the Civil Procedure Code. The first nine references have been made by the Judge, Debt Relief Court, Bilara in cases in which various debtors had filed separate applications under sec. 6 of the Rajasthan Relief of Agricultural Indebtedness Act. , 1957 (hereinafter called the Act ). In ail these cases various co-operative societies registered under the Rajasthan Co-operative Societies Act, 1953, were shown as creditors. It was argued before the learned judge on behalf of these Societies that the Act does not apply to the liability in respect of any sum due to any society registered or deemed to have been registered under the Rajasthan Co-operative Societies Act, 1953 and as such the Debt Relief Court was not empowered to pass any order in respect of their debt under the provisions of the Act They also relied on sec. 146 (2) of the Rajasthan Co-operative Societies Act, 1965 which lays down that nothing contained in the Rajasthan Relief of Agricultural Indebtedness Act, 1957, shall apply to the loans advanced by the Co-operative Societies under the Rajasthan Co-operative Societies Act. On behalf of the debtors, it was contended that both these provisions were ultra vires the Constitution as they denied the debtor equality before the law. The learned Judge, therefore, made these references under sec. 113 Civil Procedure Code after formulating three questions. The first two questions formulated are as follows: (1) Whether sec. 4 (b) of the Rajasthan Relief of Agricultural Indebtedness Act 1953 is hit by Article 14 of the Indian Constitution it being discriminatory? (2) Whether sec. 146 sub-sec. (2) of the Rajasthan Co-operative Societies Act 1965 is also a discriminatory one and as such it is also hit by Article 14 of the Constitution?

(2.) THE third question also purports to contain what is contained in the first two questions and it need not be mentioned.

(3.) THUS, under sec. 3 of the Civil Procedure Code, for the purposes of the Civil Procedure Code, every Civil Court of the grade inferior to that of a District Court is subordinate to the High Court no matter whether any revision application lies directly to the High Court or not. In the matter of subordination of Courts, to the High Court, Art. 228 of the Constitution must be interpreted in the same light. The principle laid down in sec. 3 Civil Procedure Code is based on common sense and this common sense interpretation must be adopted while interpreting Art. 228 of the Constitution. There can be no doubt that a Debt Relief Court is inferior to a District Court and District Court while performing its duty under sec. 17 of the Act cannot be treated as persona designate, but it is court which is subordinate to the High Court. Further, the District Court has been enumerated as one of the Courts subordinate to the High Court in the Rajasthan Civil Courts Ordinance, 1950 under which the Court of District Judge is established. In this view of the matter, we do not find any difficulty in treating the Debt Relief Court as subordinate to the High Court.