JUDGMENT 1. - The petitioner has filed this revision petition under Section 115 C.P.C. against the order dated 27-6-1994 passed by the learned Civil Judge, Jodhpur by which the application moved by the petitioner under Section 83 of the Transfer of Property Act (for short 'the Act') was dismissed. 2. The petitioner filed an application under Section 83 of the Act before the Court alleging that he took a loan of Rs. 13,000/- some 15 years back from the State Bank of India, Branch Bilara and mortgaged his agricultural land. He complained that the Bank did not render any accounts and taking proceedings under the Rajasthan Agricultural Credit Operation (Removal of Difficulties) Act, 1974. He, therefore, prayed that the Bank be directed to furnish complete accounts to the applicant. In reply to the above application, the non-petitioner submitted that a sum of Rs. 28,430/- was due from the petitioner. It was also stated that initially the petitioner took a loan of Rs. 15,000/- in the year 1981 and thereafter again took a loan of Rs. 6,000/- in the year 1982 for digging a well by mortgaging his agricultural land. Since the petitioner failed to pay the above amount, the non-petitioner moved the Collector/ S.D.O. for recovery of the above amount under the above Act. The non-petitioner also challenged the maintainability of the above application under Section 83 of the Act. 3. I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned counsel for the non-petitioner. 4. After taking the facts and circumstances into consideration I am of opinion that the application filed by the petitioner under Section 83 of the Act was not maintainable. Section 83 of the Act has been enacted to enable the mortgagor to redeem his mortgaged property by making payment into Court which has become due. It is necessary that the above step must be taken before a suit for redemption of the mortgaged property has become barred. After the mortgagor has deposited the amount, the Court shall thereupon order a written notice of deposit to be served on the mortgage and the mortgagee, if he does not dispute and shows willingness to accept the amount, the mortgagee can do so by accepting the amount and delivering the documents of mortgage to the mortgagor. After the mortgagor has deposited the amount, the Court shall thereupon order a written notice of deposit to be served on the mortgage and the mortgagee, if he does not dispute and shows willingness to accept the amount, the mortgagee can do so by accepting the amount and delivering the documents of mortgage to the mortgagor. In the instant case the prayer made by the petitioner was to direct the non-petitioner to furnish accounts in respect of the mortgage of his land. This is not the scope of Section 83 of the Act. It may also be stated that when the petitioner moved the application under Section 83 of the Act, proceedings for recovery were being taken against the petitioner under the above Act by the Authorised Officer at the instance of the petitioner. As a matter of fact when a notice under Section 13 of the Act was issued by the Authorised Officer, the petitioner ought to have taken legal objections and he could also have very well prayed the Authorised Officer to direct the Bank to furnish correct and complete accounts in respect of the above loans. Instead of availing his remedy under the above Act, the petitioner filed this application under Section 83 of the Act. It is not the scope of Section 83 of the Act for the Court to make an inquiry and ascertain the amount of mortgage. For availing the facility provided by the statute, the mortgagor can avail the same when he voluntarily deposits the mortgage money which has become due. In the instant case the petitioner, instead of depositing the money, is making a request to the Court to ask the Bank to furnish correct account. 5. During arguments learned counsel for the petitioner categorically stated that the above proceedings have been concluded and the petitioner had to part with Rs. 2,000/- more than what was due. Thus the matter in respect of the loans has been legally adjudicated. If the petitioner still feels aggrieved, he can avail any legal remedy available to him. 6. I, therefore, find no force in the revision petition and the same is, therefore, hereby dismissed.Petition dismissed. *******