Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur
Ram Ratan vs Hind Pal Singh on 16 November, 2021
Bench: Pushpendra Singh Bhati
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
JODHPUR
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 10335/2013
Ram Ratan
----Petitioner
Versus
Hind Pal Singh
----Respondent
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Vijay Jain on VC.
For Respondent(s) : Mr. B.S. Sandhu
HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE PUSHPENDRA SINGH BHATI
Order
16/11/2021
1. In wake of second surge in the COVID-19 cases, abundant
caution is being maintained, while hearing the matters in Court,
for the safety of all concerned.
2. This writ petition has been preferred claiming the following
reliefs:
"by an appropriate writ, order or direction, the
impugned judgment dated 19.07.2010 (Annex.1)
and judgment dated 17.01.2012 (Annex.2) may
kindly be quashed and set aside."
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the
respondent preferred an application under Section 6(2) of the
Rajasthan Relief of Agricultural Indebtedness Act, 1957 before the
Debt Relief Court, Raisinghnagar against the present petitioner,
alleging inter alia that on 08.04.2002, the petitioner had borrowed
from the respondent a sum of Rs.3,20,000/- at a monthly interest
of Rs.2/- per 100, but the same is not being returned, even after
(Downloaded on 17/11/2021 at 08:51:28 PM)
(2 of 3) [CW-10335/2013]
expiration of the time limit therefor. Learned counsel further
submits that the Debt Relief Court, after hearing both the parties
passed a judgment on 19.07.2010, whereby the demand was
decreed.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner also submits that the
petitioner, being aggrieved by the aforementioned judgment,
preferred a revision before the learned Additional District Judge,
Raisinghnagar, which was dismissed vide order dated 17.01.2012,
and hence, the petitioner has preferred the present petition.
5. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that
hearing and decision of the revision by the learned Additional
District Judge was beyond jurisdiction, and has referred to the
judgment rendered in Balwant Ram Vs. Ram Pratap & Ors.,
reported in WLN 1993 (1) 702.
6. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondent
submits that the position of law has been clarified by this Hon'ble
Court in Modilal & Anr. Vs. L.Rs. Of Chatra Ram & Ors.,
reported in RLW 2003(3) Raj. 2001. Learned counsel thus,
submits that the revision petition has rightly been decided by the
learned court below.
7. After hearing learned counsel for the parties as well as
perusing the record of the case, alongwith the judgments cited at
the Bar, this Court finds that though the petitioner tries to make
out a case that he has been prejudiced on merits, but could not
point out any defect in the impugned order to substantiate his
submissions.
(Downloaded on 17/11/2021 at 08:51:28 PM)
(3 of 3) [CW-10335/2013]
8. The judgment of Modilal & Anr. (supra) cited on behalf of
the respondent is applicable in the present case; however, the
judgment of Balwant Ram (supra) cited on behalf of the
petitioner is not applicable.
9. In view of the above, no case for interference is made out.
10. Consequently, the present petition is dismissed. All pending
applications stand disposed of.
(DR.PUSHPENDRA SINGH BHATI),J.
59-SKant/-
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
