- (1.)THIS s a debtor's application under Article 226 of the Constitution of India and it seeks to challenge the correctness of the decision of the learned District Judge, jhunjhunu, dated 8th May, 1962, given in a revision application filed against the order of the Civil Judge, Neem-ka-thana, dated 25th November, 1961
(2.)THE facts giving (sic) it are as follows: the non-petitioner No. I before this Court, that is, Govindram. had obtained against the petitioner two decrees from the Civil Courts, one dated 29th March, 1957 for Rs. 593/- and the other dated 18th April, 1957 for Rs. 887/ -. The Rajasthan Relief of Agricultural Indebtedness act, 1957 (No. 28 of 1957), which will hereinafter be referred to as the 'act', came into force from 15th May, 1. 958. On 24th February, 1960 the present petitioner Gullaram presented an application under section 6 of the Act in the Court of Civil Judge, Neem-ka-thana which was also a debt Relief Court according to section 3 of the Act. The said court found that there were two types of transactions between the parties, one relating to the loan of grain and the other concerning the loan in cash. After examining the previous transactions, it came to the conclusion that the petitioner was not liable to pay anything so far as the transaction relating to the grain was concerned, but in the account relating to the loan in cash, it was held that Rs. 102/- only remained payable by him. It, therefore, upheld the claim of respondent No. 1 only to the extent of rs. 102/- and discharged the the remaining debts. Aggrieved by that order dated 25-11-61, the non-petitioner No. 1 presented a revision application in the Court of District Judge, Jhunihunu, under Section 17 of the Act. The learned Judge was of the view that the Debt Relief Court had no jurisdiction to go behind the decrees of the Civil Court and that it could take into consideration only those payments which were made by the debtor subsequent to the passing of the decrees, if they were not accounted for by the decree-holder. He. therefore, allowed the revision application, set aside the order of the Civil Judge, Neem-ka-thana and remanded the case with direction to proceed under section 11 of the Act in the light of the observations made by him. It is the correctness of this order which is sought to be challenged in the present writ application.
(3.)WHEN this case came for hearing before a Division Bench of this Court, it was urged by learned counsel for the petitioner that the decision of the learned District judge to the effect that the Debt Relief Court had no jurisdiction to go behind the decrees and reopen the accounts was manifestly wrong and in support of his contention he referred to Karansee v. Sonsingh, 1963 Raj LW 406. Learned counsel for respondent No. J challenged the correctness of the view taken in the said case and, therefore, the Court referred the present case to a larger Bench.
;