Rajasthan High Court
Gyanchand S/O Ghashiram Meena vs Sangeeta Mathur W/O Surendra Narayan ... on 21 February, 2024
Author: Mahendar Kumar Goyal
Bench: Mahendar Kumar Goyal
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN
BENCH AT JAIPUR
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 9429/2021
Gyanchand S/o Ghashiram Meena, R/o Village Ukhlana, Tehsil
Uniyara, District Tonk, Haal Sevarat Poinsmen, Railway Vibhag,
Sawaimadhopur..
----Petitioner
Versus
Sangeeta Mathur W/o Surendra Narayan Mathur, R/o
Gangashankar Ji Vakil Ke Makan Ke Samne, Railway Colony,
Sawaidhopur.
----Respondent
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Tarun Jain Advocate with Mr.
Rakesh Saini Advocate.
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MAHENDAR KUMAR GOYAL
Order
21/02/2024
This writ petition has been preferred assailing the legality
and validity of judgment dated 19.04.2021 passed by the learned
District Judge, Sawai Madhopur (Raj) (for short 'the Revisional
Court') in Civil Revision No.04/2019 whereby, while dismissing the
revision petition filed by the petitioner/debtor/non-applicant,
order dated 22.01.2019 passed by the Court of learned Debts
Relief Judge, Sawai Madhopur (Senior Civil Judge) (for short 'the
Debts Relief Court') allowing Debt Relief Application No.6/2013
filed by the Non-petitioner No.1/applicant (for short, "applicant")
has been affirmed.
The relevant facts in brief are that the applicant filed an
application under Section 6 of the Rajasthan Relief of Agricultural
Indebtedness Act, 1957 (for short 'the Act of 1957') stating
(2 of 3) [CW-9429/2021]
therein that non-applicant had taken a loan of Rs.60,000/- from
him on 08.08.2012 for his personal requirement, which was not
returned despite request and notice. Therefore, refund of the loan
amount with interest was prayed for. The non-applicant, in his
reply, denied acceptance of any loan amount from the applicant.
On the basis of the pleadings of the parties, learned Debt
Relief Court framed four issues including relief. After recording
evidence of the respective parties, the learned Debt Relief Court
allowed the application filed by the applicant. The Revision Petition
preferred thereagainst by non-applicant has been dismissed by
the learned Revisional Court vide Judgment dated 19.04.2021.
Assailing the impugned judgment, learned counsel for the
non-applicant submits that findings of the learned Courts are
against the evidence on record. He submits that while allowing the
application, the learned Court did not appreciate that the
documents submitted by the applicant in support of the averments
contained in the application were forged and fabricated. He,
therefore, prays that the writ petition be allowed, judgment dated
19.04.2021 be quashed and set aside and the application filed by
the applicant under Section 6 of the Act of 1957 be dismissed.
Heard. Considered.
While allowing the application filed by the applicant,
appreciating the testimony of the applicant (AW-1) and her
witnesses Shri Ram Narayan (AW-2), Hari Shankar Bairwa (AW-3)
& Ramraj (AW-4) as also the documentary evidence such as
promissory note (Exhibit-1) and Receipt (Exhibit-2) executed by
the non-applicant, the learned Debt Relief Court has held that it
was established that the non-applicant has obtained a loan of
(3 of 3) [CW-9429/2021]
Rs.60,000/- from the applicant, which he failed to repay. These
findings have been affirmed by the learned Revisional Court,
re-appreciating the evidence on record. Appreciating the evidence
of non-applicant as NAW-1, it was observed by the learned
Revisional Court that the debtor worked under the subordination
of husband of the applicant and, thus, the parties were known to
each other. Relying on and referring to the testimony of Shri Hari
Shankar (AW-3), the Notary Public, it was held that the non-
applicant had put his signatures on the pro-note and the receipt in
his presence.
Learned counsel for the non-applicant has miserably failed to
satisfy the Court that the aforesaid findings suffer from any
illegality, perversity or manifest error of law or facts so as to
warrant interference by this Court under its supervisory
jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India.
Resultantly, this writ petition is dismissed being devoid of
merit.
(MAHENDAR KUMAR GOYAL),J
SANJAY KUMAWAT-55
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
