Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2006 DIGILAW 1187 (RAJ)

Moti Lal v. Dashrath

2006-04-15

PREM SHANKAR ASOPA

body2006
Judgment Prem Shanker Asopa, J.-The instant writ petition has been filed against the order dated 012.1994 passed by the learned District and Sessions Judge, Sawai Madhopur as a Revisional Court under the Rajasthan Relief of Agricultural Indebtedness Act, 1957 (for short the Act of 1957) whereby the revision petition filed by the respondent against the Judgment dated 10.07.1990 passed by the Debt Relief Court (Civil Judge), Sawai Madhopur has been set-aside by reversing the findings on issue Nos. 2 and 3 and the recovery claim filed by the petitioner has been dismissed. 2. Briefly stated the relevant facts of the case are that the Joint Hindu Family Firm M/s Bajrang Lal Moti Lal gave a loan of Rs. 4,801/-to the respondent who has executed a pronote and on demand when the money was not returned, then the present petitioner filed a claim petition under Section 6 of the Act of 1957 being a sole proprietor Firm after the death of Bajrang Lal. 3. A written statement was filed by the respondent wherein he has denied the fact of taking loan and also denied the fact that he is an agriculturist with the further mentioning of the fact that he is doing the job of silver artisan work. Therefore, the application under Section 6 of the Act of 1957 is not maintainable. 4. On the basis of the pleadings of the parties, the following issues have been framed:- 5. The trial Court decided all the issues in favour of the petitioner. The findings on issue Nos. 2 and 3 given by the Debt Relief Court is reproduced hereunder for ready reference:- 7. Against the said Judgment , respondent Dashrath filed a revision petition under Section 17 of the Act of 1957 before the District and Sessions Judge, Sawai Madhopur and more particularly assailed the findings on issue Nos. 2 and 3. The learned District Judge reversed the findings on issue Nos. 2 and 3 by appreciating the evidence which is beyond the scope of the said Section 17 of the Act of 1957. 8. The submission of the Counsel for the petitioner is that the Court has acted beyond the scope of Section 17 of the Act of 1957. Otherwise also, the finding of the Revisional Court on issue No. 2 is perverse whereas the finding on issue No. 3 is contrary to the provisions of the Act of 1957. 8. The submission of the Counsel for the petitioner is that the Court has acted beyond the scope of Section 17 of the Act of 1957. Otherwise also, the finding of the Revisional Court on issue No. 2 is perverse whereas the finding on issue No. 3 is contrary to the provisions of the Act of 1957. According to Sub-section 2(b) of the Act of 1957, “agriculturist” means a person who earns his livelihood wholly or mainly from agriculture and also includes a person who ordinarily engages in agricultural labour or who works as an agricultural artisan. The Counsel for the petitioner further submits that the respondent has admitted having 4 or 5 bighas of land and two tractors in his cross-examination and it has also been proved that he is taking the land of others for cultivation and using the said tractors for the purpose of cultivation. Therefore, he is covered by the definition of “agriculturist”. The said aspect which was proved before the Debt Relief Court has been incorrectly appreciated and the findings of issue No. 3 has been reversed. 9. Neither any reply has been filed nor anyone appears to oppose the writ petition. 10. I have carefully gone through the Judgment s of both the Courts below as well as the provisions of the Act of 1957 and considered the submissions made by the Counsel for the petitioner. 11. Section 2 (b) and Section 17 of the Rajasthan Relief of Agricultural Indebtedness Act, 1957 read as under:- 2. Definitions - In this act, unless the subject or context otherwise requires,- .(a) ......................... .(b) “agriculturist” means a person who earns his livelihood wholly or mainly from:- .(i) agriculture, or .(ii) rent from agricultural land, in case he belongs to any of the categories of persons mentioned in Clauses (a) to (h) of Sub-section (1) of Section 46 of the Rajasthan Tenancy Act, 1955 (Rajasthan Act 3 of 1955) and includes a person who ordinarily engages in agricultural labour or who works as an agricultural artisan.” 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) that the order is contrary to law; .(b) that the Court has exercised jurisdiction not vested in it by law or 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; but, subject to the orders of the District Court on such application and further subject to the provision of Section 18, the order of the Debt Relief Court shall be final.” 12. This Court in the case of Nanda vs. The District Judge, Jaipur Distt., Jaipur & Ors., 1972 WLN 575, has determined the scope of Section 17 and has held that if the facts are capable of leading the revisional Court to arrive at a different conclusion, even then the decision would not be called a decision contrary to law and the revisional Court will have no power under Section 17 of the Act to exercise the jurisdiction conferred there under to disturb the pure finding of fact. Para Nos. 10, 11 and 12 of the aforesaid Judgment are as follows:- “10. These authorities clearly go to indicate that the Court which exercises power of revision cannot act as a Court of appeal to disturb the finding of fact arrived at by the subordinate Court unless a manifest injustice has been done to a party who feels aggrieved by the impugned order. Under the scheme of Section 17 of the Act the District Judge has been empowered to revise the Judgment of the Debt Relief Court when he finds that the order impugned is made contrary to law. As the Supreme Court has laid down that the term “contrary to law” is not as wide as the term “according to law”. Under the scheme of Section 17 of the Act the District Judge has been empowered to revise the Judgment of the Debt Relief Court when he finds that the order impugned is made contrary to law. As the Supreme Court has laid down that the term “contrary to law” is not as wide as the term “according to law”. This Court in Kundanlal vs. Shobharam & Anr., S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 1249 of 1971, decided on 30.08.1972 has discussed the scope of the power of the District Judge to revise the order under Section 17 of the Act and has observed thus: “ If the District Judge feels that the circumstances brought on the record can lead to a conclusion different from what has been recorded by the Debt Relief Court even then it has no jurisdiction to interfere with the order because every erroneous conclusion does not necessarily fall within the expression order contrary to law”. 11. The expression “contrary to law" covers an order passed in disregard of the provisions of law applicable to the facts and circumstances of a particular case or when a relevant law applicable to the case has been misinterpreted or misapplied by the subordinate Court. Every erroneous Judgment cannot, therefore, fall within the expression"order contrary to law." 12. In the instant case, the Debt Relief Court has given very elaborate and convincing reasons to reach the conclusion that the pronote and the receipt on which the creditor has based his claim were not executed by the debtor. The learned District Judge, while setting aside this pure finding of fact recorded by the Debt Relief Court, has not given any reasons to disbelieve the evidence of the debtor or of his witnesses, nor does he hold that the evidence of the debtor was not admissible in law or that it was irrelevant. In such circumstances it was not open for the revisional Court to interfere with the findings of fact merely because the revisional Court was of opinion that the evidence could lead to the inferences different from what have been drawn by the Debt Relief Court. In my opinion, the findings of fact recorded by the trial Court could not be disturbed by the revisional Court simply on the ground that a different conclusion could be drawn from the facts brought on the record. In my opinion, the findings of fact recorded by the trial Court could not be disturbed by the revisional Court simply on the ground that a different conclusion could be drawn from the facts brought on the record. There is no doubt that the power of revision under Section 17 of the Act is wider than the power exercised by the High Court under Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure but this revisional power is all the same limited by the expression that the findings of the original Court are open to review only when the Judgment is contrary to law. As observed above, the erroneous order of a Court competent to decide the issue cannot be called an order contrary to law simple because the revisional Court wants to arrive at a conclusion different from that of the trial Court. If the facts are capable of leading the revisional Court to arrive at a different conclusion, even then the decision of the subordinate Court would not be called a decision contrary to law, and the revisional Court will have no power under Section 17 of the Act to exercise the jurisdiction conferred thereunder to disturb the pure finding of fact.” (Emphasis supplied) 13. According to the Act of 1957, interference with the order of the Debt Relief Court can only be made when the order is contrary to law, the Court has exercised its jurisdiction not vested in it by law or has failed to exercise a jurisdiction vested in it by law and the instalments fixed are inequitable but it cannot act as Appellate Court to appreciate the evidence. The order of the Debt Relief Court has been further made final subject to Section 17 of the Act of 1957, provisions of review under Section 18 of the Act of 1957. The Revisional Court has appreciated the evidence on issue Nos. 2 and 3 like a appellate Court. The scope of Section 17 of the Act of 1957 has been determined by this Court in the case of Nanda vs. The District Judge, Jaipur Distt., Jaipur & Ors., (Supra), and the Revisional Court has acted beyond the scope of Section 17 of the Act of 1957, as determined in the aforesaid case by this Court. The scope of Section 17 of the Act of 1957 has been determined by this Court in the case of Nanda vs. The District Judge, Jaipur Distt., Jaipur & Ors., (Supra), and the Revisional Court has acted beyond the scope of Section 17 of the Act of 1957, as determined in the aforesaid case by this Court. Otherwise also, the findings of the trial Court on issue No. 2 with regard to the execution of the promissory note by the respondent which was subscribed by respondents son Babulal has been proved from the documentary evidence as well as oral evidence on record including the hand-writing expert who gave his opinion about the signature of the respondents son. As regard the agriculturist is concerned, the Act of 1957 no where places any restriction on doing any other business in addition to agriculture. Here in the instant case, the respondent himself has admitted that he is having 4-5 Bighas of land and two tractors which are being used for cultivation of land of himself and others. Thus, the Debt Relief Court has rightly came to the conclusion that the respondent is earning his livelihood mainly from agriculture. The respondent has not produced any other kind of evidence to show that he is not the agriculturist and mainly doing the job of artisan to earn his livelihood. 14. In view of the above, the submissions of the Counsel for the petitioner are accepted and the reasons given by the Revisional Court while reversing the findings of the Debt Relief Court are rejected being beyond the scope of Section 17 of the Act of 1957. 15. In view of the above, the writ petition is allowed and the findings on issue No. 2 and issue No. 3 reversed by the Revisional Court (District and Sessions Judge, Sawai Madhopur) and its Judgment dated 012.1994 are set-aside and the Judgment of the Debt Relief Court (Civil Judge), Sawai Madhopur dated 10.07.1990 is restored. 16. There shall be no order as to costs.