Rajasthan High Court - Jaipur
Modilal And Anr. vs L.Rs. Of Chatra Ram And Ors. on 30 January, 2003
Equivalent citations: RLW2003(3)RAJ2001, 2003(2)WLC509
JUDGMENT Garg, J.
1. This writ petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India has been filed by the petitioners on 27.1.1988 against the respondents with the prayer that by an appropriate writ, order or direction, the judgment (Annex. 2) dated 7.10.1987 passed by the learned Addl. District Judge, Bali by which he accepted the revision petition of the respondent No. 1 Chatra Ram (hereinafter referred to as "the deceased)". (now represented by his LRs.) and set aside the judgment and decree dated 2.12.1982 passed by the learned Dept Relief Court (Munsiff Magistrate, Ball) by which learned Dept Relief Court accepted the claim of the petitioners filed under Section 6 of the Rajasthan Relief of Agricultural Indebtedness Act, 1957 (hereinafter referred to as "the Act of 1957") for Rs. 800/- in favour of the petitioner No. 1 Modi Lal and for Rs. 1091/- in favour of the petitioner No. 2 Kheta Ram, be quashed and set aside.
2. It arises in the following circumstances :-
The petitioner No. 1 Modi Lal advanced a loan of Rs. 800/- to deceased Chatra Ram for purchase of an ox and in lieu of that, he executed receipt and pronote (Ex.1) on 8.7.1973 in favour of the petitioner No. 1 Modi Lal. Since the amount was not paid by the deceased Chatra Ram and since he was an agriculturist, a claim was filed by the petitioner No. 1 Modi Lal against the deceased Chatra Ram under Section 6 of the Act of 1957 before the Debt Relief Court (Munsiff Magistrate, Bali). The deceased Chatra Ram filed a reply and disputed the factum of execution of pronote and receipt.
During the pendency of the application of the petitioner No. 1 Modi Lal, another claim under Section 6 of the Act of 1957 was filed by the petitioner No. 2 Kheta Ram and the case of the petitioner No. 2 Kheta Ram was that deceased Chatra Ram obtained a loan of Rs. 1091/- in cash and executed pronote, (Ex.2) in favour of the petitioner No. 2 Kheta Ram.
Thereafter, evidence was led by both the parties before the Debt Relief Court (Munsiff Magistrate, Bali).
After hearing both the parties, the learned Debt Relief Court (Munsiff Magistrate, Bali) through judgment and decree dt. 2.12.1982 (Annex. 1) decreed the claim of both the petitioners against the deceased Chatra Ram in the manner as indicated above.
Aggrieved from the said judgment and decree dated 2.12.1982 (Annex. 1) passed by the learned Dept Relief Court (Munsiff Magistrate, Bali), a revision was filed by the deceased Chatra Ram before the Court of Addl. District Judge, Sirohi as at that time, the jurisdiction was with the Court of Addl. District Judge, Sirohi and later-on, a separate Court of Addl. District Judge was created at Bait and thus, the case was first transferred to the Court of District Judge, Pali and later on, it was transferred to the Court of Addl. District Judge, Bali.
After hearing both the parties, the learned Addl. District Judge, Bali through his judgment dated 7.10.1987 (Annex. 2) accepted the revision of the deceased Chatraram and set aside the judgment and decree (Annex. 1) dated 2.12.1982 passed by the learned Debt Relief Court (Munsiff Magistrate, Bali) holding inter-alia :-
(i) That signatures of the deceased Chatra Ram on pronotes Ex. 1 and Ex.2 were found doubtful.
(ii) That petitioners have failed to prove execution of pronotes Ex.1 and Ex.2 in their favour by the deceased Chatra Ram.
Aggrieved from the said judgment dated 7.10.1987 (Annex. 2) passed by the learned Addl. District Judge, Bali, this writ petition has been filed by the petitioners.
3. In this writ petition, the following submissions have been made by the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners :-
(i) That the learned Addl. District Judge, Bali had no jurisdiction to entertain and decide the revision under Section 17 of the Act of 1957 as only the competent court to hear and decide revision under Section 17 of the Act of 1957 was the Court of District Judge, Pali and from this point of view, the judgment of the learned Addl. District Judge, Bali dated 7.10.1987 (Annex. 2) is without jurisdiction and should be quashed and set aside.
(ii) That since the learned Addl. District Judge, Bali was hearing a revision, therefore, by reversing the findings of facts, he committed a clear error of law as it was not open for him while exercising revisional jurisdiction to disturb the findings of facts recorded by the learned Debt Relief Court (Munsiff Magistrate, Bali) through judgment and decree dated 2.12.1982 (Annex. 1). Hence, from this point of view also, the impugned judgment Annex. 2 dated 7.10.1987 cannot be sustained and liable to be quashed and set aside.
He has placed reliance on the decisions of this Court in Banshidhar v. Smt. Sita Bai (1) and Nanda v. The District Judge, Jaipur District, Jaipur and Ors. (2).
4. On the other hand, it has been submitted by the learned counsel appearing for the respondents :-
(i) That there is a divergence of views amongst the Judges of this Court, but the view expressed in Jiya Ram and Ors. v. Judge, Debt Relief Court, Ganganagar and Ors. (3), appears to be reasonable and bonafide one as the District Judge includes Addl. District Judge and Addl. District Judge can discharge functions of District Judge and furthermore, in Section 17 of the Act of 1957, a revision lies before the District Court and it is nowhere stated in Section 17 that Court would be of principle Court of civil original jurisdiction and thus, from this point of view also, the Addl. District Judge was fully competent to hear and decide the revision under Section 17 of the Act of 1957.
(ii) That on second point, it was submitted that no doubt Under Section 17 of the Act of 1957, a revision lies against the judgment of the learned Debt Relief Court, but the scope of Section 17 of the Act of 1957 is wider than as provided under Section 115 CPC. Hence, the findings of facts recorded by the learned Debt Relief Court (Munsiff Magistrate, Bali) were reversed by the learned Addl. District Judge, Bali after giving cogent reasons and that act of the learned Addl. District Judge, Bali was within jurisdiction and cannot be challenged now in writ petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India.
Hence, the writ petition filed by the petitioners be dismissed.
5. I have heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners and the learned counsel appearing for the respondents and gone through the materials available on record.
Point No. 16. For convenience, the relevant provisions of Section 17 of the Act of 1957 and the explanation attached to it are quoted here :-
"Section 17. Revision of order of Debt Relief Courts- Any person aggrieved by an order of a Debt Relief Court may, within ninety days of such order, apply to the District Court for revision of the order on any of the following grounds :-
(a)...........
(b)...........
(c)...........
Explanation-For the purposes of the Section (and Section 18, 18A and 19( the District Court shall be deemed to be the Court of the District Judge within whose civil jurisdiction the Debt Relief Court is situate."
7. A bare perusal of the above definition clearly reveals that it is nowhere mentioned in Section 17 of the Act of 1957 that the District Judge would be that person, who presides over the principal court or civil original jurisdiction of the Judicial District created by the Government. This is one of the aspects of the matter.
8. This Court in the case of Jiya Ram (supra), which was also on interpretation of Section 17 of the Act of 1957, came to the conclusion that the Addl. District Judge can discharge the functions of District Judge and in such a situation, the decision of the Addl. District Judge cannot be termed to be without jurisdiction.
9. But, there is a contrary view of this Court in Badri Prasad and Anr. v. Addl. District Judge, Dholpur and Ors. (4), where this Court came to the conclusion that Additional District Judge was not competent to exercise the power of revision under Section 17 of the Act of 1957.
10. Similarly, in another decision in Balwant Ram v. Ram Pratap and Ors. (5), the view expressed by this Court in the case of Badri Prasad (supra) was upheld and it was held by this Court that Addl. District Judge had no jurisdiction to hear the revision against the order of the Debt Relief Court under Section 17 of the Act of 1957.
11. In my considered opinion, the law laid down in the case of Badri Prasad (supra) in contrast to the law laid down in the case of Jiya Ram (supra) can be distinguished in the manner that the court was of the view that the Court of District Judge was the principal court of civil original jurisdiction and, therefore, from this point of view, as observed above, the word "District Court" and the explanation attached to it in Section 17 stands on different footing. Thus, from this point of view, the law laid down in the case of Badri Prasad (supra) can be distinguished from the law laid down in the case of Jiya Ram (supra).
12. Apart from this, in my considered opinion, the power of revision conferred upon a District Judge under Section 17 of the Act of 1957 being a power in relation to the decision of a civil suit, cannot be of a nature different from the ordinary judicial power of a civil court deciding a civil suit. The District Judge exercises his powers as a court of law and not merely as a persona designata and when he exercises powers not as persona designata, Additional District Judge is fully competent to discharge the same functions.
13. Furthermore, according to Section 10 of the Rajasthan Civil Courts Ordinance, 1950, an Additional District Judge can discharge any of the functions of a District Judge which the District Judge may assign to him and in the discharge of these functions, he shall exercise the same powers as the District Judge.
14. Thus, it is held that the Additional District Judge is fully competent to hear and decide the revision under Section 17 of the Act of 1957.
15. Hence, the argument No. 1 stands rejected. Point No. 2
16. No doubt the findings of facts recorded by the learned Debt Relief Court (Munsiff Magistrate, Bali) in the judgment and decree (Annex. 1) dated 2.12.1982 were reversed by the learned Addl. District Judge, Bali through his impugned judgment dated 7.10.1987 (Annex. 2) and in doing so, the learned Addl. District Judge has given so many reasons in coming to the conclusion that the pronotes Ex.1 and Ex.2 were not executed by the deceased Chatra Ram in favour of the petitioners.
17. It may be stated here that nature of revision under Section 17 of the Act of 1957 is quite different from that of under Section 115 CPC.
18. On the following grounds, a revision under Section 17 of the Act of 1957 can be entertained by the District Court against the order of the Debt Relief Court :-
(a) That the order is contrary to law.
(b) That the court has (i) exercised a jurisdiction not vested in it by law.
or
(ii) has failed to exercise a jurisdiction vested in it by law;
(c) That the instalments fixed under Sub-section (3) of Section 11 are inequitable.
19. Thus, the scope of revision under Section 17 of the Act of 1957 is wider enough and it includes the interference in the finding of fact arrived at by the Debt Relief Court on the grounds mentioned above. Furthermore, the so-called revisionary powers given to the District Court under Section 17 of the Act of 1957 are not merely revisionary powers, but they also include powers given to an appellate court to a limited extent, as held by this Court in Deep Chand and Ors. v. Surta and Ors. (6).
20. Apart from this, it has to be kept in mind that the scope of interference in revision under Section 17 of the Act of 1957 is to a limited extent.
21. Law cannot be laid down in the manner that since there is a finding of fact recorded by the Debt Relief Court, that cannot in any manner be disturbed in revisional jurisdiction under Section 17 of the Act of revisional jurisdiction under, Section 17 of the act of 1957. Such proposition of law can never and should never be accepted. If the order is contrary to law or the court has exercised a jurisdiction not vested in it by law or has failed to exercise a jurisdiction vested in it by law, in such a situation, a finding of fact can be interfered with in revision under Section 17 of the Act of 1957. In this respect, the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Champa Lal v. Shaik Naimuddin Alias Gulsheer Pasha and Anr. (7), may be referred to where it was observed that a finding of fact in revision can be interfered with if the same was recorded after ignoring the material evidence on record.
22. Thus, it is held that in suitable cases, the findings of facts recorded by the Debt Relief Court can be interfered with by the District Court while exercising revisional jurisdiction under Section 17 of the Act of 1957.
23. When this being the position, ii the impugned judgment (Annex. 2) of the learned Addl. District Judge is perused as a whole, it does not appear that it suffers from basic infirmity or illegality as cogent reasons have been given by the learned Addl. District Judge in coming to the conclusion that the pronotes Ex.1 and Ex.2 were not executed by the deceased Chatra Ram in favour of the petitioners.
24. The next question for consideration is whether the findings recorded by the learned Addl. District Judge in his impugned judgment Annex. 2 can be interfered with by this Court under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India or not.
25. Under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the High Court does not sit or act as an appellate Authority over the actions of the subordinate authorities or tribunal.
26. The power of general superintendence conferred by Article 227 involves a duty on the part of the High Court to keep all courts and tribunals within its territorial jurisdiction within the bounds of their authority, to see that they do what their duty requires and they do it in a legal manner. This means that the High Court can interfere in a cases of-
(a) Erroneous assumption or excess of jurisdiction.
(b) Refusal to exercise jurisdiction.
(c) Error of law apparent on the face of the record, as distinguished from a mere mistake of law or error of law relating to jurisdiction.
(d) Violation of principles of natural justice.
(e) Arbitrary or capricious exercise of authority, or discretion.
(f) Arriving at a findings which is perverse or based on no material.
27. As already stated above, the impugned judgment (Annex. 2) of the learned Addl. District Judge does not suffer from any basic infirmity or illegality and the learned Addl. District Judge has given cogent reasons in arriving at the conclusion that the pronotes Ex.1 and Ex.2 were not executed by the deceased Chatra Ram in favour of the petitioners.
28. Thus, no interference is called for with the impugned judgment of the learned Addl. District Judge, Bali dated 7.10.1987 (Annex. 2) in exercise of powers under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India.
29. Hence, argument No. 2 also stands rejected.
30. For the reasons stated above, there is no merit in this writ petition and the same is liable to be dismissed.
Accordingly, this writ petition filed by the petitioners is dismissed. No order as to costs.