Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2009 DIGILAW 1354 (RAJ)

Tirthdas v. Prem Singh Chhabra and Sons

2009-05-18

H.R.PANWAR

body2009
JUDGMENT 1. - By the instant writ petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner has challenged the order dated 23.4.2009 passed by Additional District Judge, Anoopgarh, District Sriganganagar (for short 'the revisional court' hereinafter) under Section 17 of the Rajasthan Relief of Agricultural Indebtedness Act, 1957 (for short 'the Act of 1957' hereinafter). 2. I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner at length. 3. It is contended by learned counsel for the petitioner that Section 17 of the Act of 1957 provides that the order of Debt Relief Court is revisable before the District Court and, therefore, the District Court would mean the Principal District Judge Court and, therefore, the Additional District Judge has no jurisdiction to hear and decide the revision. Learned counsel for the petitioner has relied on a decision of this Court reported in 1972 WLN 180 Badri Prasad and Anr. v. Additional District Judge, Dholpur and Ors. 4. I have carefully gone through the material available on record. and also perused the order Impugned. 5. This controversy came up for consideration before this Court in Jiya Ram and Others v. Judge Debt Relief Court, Ganganagar and Others, 1977 WLN (UC) 367 wherein the controversy precisely raised was Identical, to the controversy raised in the Instant writ petition that as to whether the Additional District Judge has power to hear and decide the revision under Section 17 of the Act of 1957 and this Court held as under: "2. The only point canvassed before me was that under Section 17 of the Rajasthan Relief of Agricultural Indebtedness Act, 1957, It is only the District Judge who is empowered to hear revisions against the orders of a Debt Relief Court while the impugned order has been made. by an Additional District Judge and is, therefore, without jurisdiction. 3. I have considered. Section 17 provides that any person aggrieved by an order of the Debt Relief Court may apply to the District Court for revision of the said order. The explanation to Section 17 further provides that the Court of the District Judge within whose Civil Jurisdiction the Debt Relief Court is situated shall be the District Court for the purposes of Section 17. The explanation to Section 17 further provides that the Court of the District Judge within whose Civil Jurisdiction the Debt Relief Court is situated shall be the District Court for the purposes of Section 17. According to Section 10 of the Rajasthan Civil Courts Ordinance, 1950 an Additional Judge (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. As a matter of fact there is nothing like a court of the Additional District Judge. It is a District Court or a Court of the District Judge to which the Additional Judges are appointed under sub-section (1) of Section 10. The Additional Judge, therefore, is one of the Judges of the District Court, but he can discharge only such functions as are assigned to him by the District Judge. It appears that the revision was filed in the District Court, Sri Ganganagar, but was transferred to the Additional District Judge for disposal." 6. Again this controversy came to be considered by this Court in the ' case of Modilal and Anr. v. L.Rs. of Chatra Ram and Ors., 2003 (1) DNJ (Raj.) 442 and point No. 1 formulated therein was as to whether the provisions of Section 17 of the Act of 1957 and the explanation attached thereto empowers the Additional District .Judge to hear and decide the revision. After considering the decision of this Court In Jiya Ram and Ors. (supra) as also the decision in Badri Prasad and Anr. v. Addl. District Judge, Dholpur and Ors., 1972 WLN 180 , this Court held that 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 of the Act of 1957 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) and relying on decision rendered by this Court in Jiya Ram (supra) held that 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 and on these premises it was held that the Additional District Judge is fully competent to hear and decide the revision u/s. 17 of the Act of 1957. 7. In my view, the view taken by this Court in Jiya Ram's case (supra) followed in Modilal and Anr. (supra) decides the controversy raised in the instant writ petition and, therefore, the Court below was justified In passing the order Impugned. I do not find any ground to Interfere In the order Impugned. The writ petition Is, therefore, dismissed.-Writ Petition Dismissed. *******