N.L. Ganguly, J. - (1.) THE appellant took some loan from the Bank for agricultural purposes. The amount of loan was not paid back. The proceedings for recovery of the loan amount were taken and the property of the appellant was attached in execution for the recovery proceedings. The appellant filed a civil suit challenging the order of the prescribed authority on the ground that the prescribed authority had no jurisdiction to pass orders for recovery of the loan amount. He raised several objections about the liability of payment of the agricultural loan. The trial court dismissed the suit on the ground that the prescribed authority passed the orders for recovery of the amount due from the appellant under the U.P. Agriculture Credit Act. The order passed by the prescribed authority was assailed in appeal by the appellant but since he failed to deposit the requisite court fee, the appeal stood dismissed. Thereafter the suit was filed. The suit was dismissed on the ground of a bar that the Civil Court had no jurisdiction to adjudicate the validity of the order passed by the prescribed authority. The learned counsel for the appellant submitted that he moved an application for amendment by which he sought the relief that the decree of the prescribed authority passed for recovery of the loan amount was illegal and void and could not be executed against the appellant. The learned counsel for the appellant admits that an appeal was filed which stood dismissed for want of payment of court fee. The learned counsel placed reliance on The decision reported in Raja Ram Kumar Bhargava v. Union of India : A.I.R. 1988 S.C. 752. The relevant para 9 of the judgment shows that: Generally speaking, the broad guiding considerations are that wherever aright not pre -existing in common law, is created by a statute and that statute itself provided a machinery for the enforcement of the right, both the right and the remedy having been created uno flatu and a finality is intended to the result of the statutory proceedings, then, even in the absence of an exclusionary provision the civil courts' jurisdiction is impliedly barred. If, however, a right pre -existing in common law is recognised by the statute and a new statutory remedy for its enforcement provided, without expressly excluding the civil courts' jurisdiction, then both the common law and the statutory remedies might become concurrent remedies leaving open an element of election to the persons of inherence .
(2.) THIS authority shuts the mouth of the appellant to argue now that the suit was wrongly dismissed and the lower appellate court also erred in dismissing the appeal. The appellant contested the proceedings before the prescribed authority and had filed an appeal, which ultimately failed for nonpayment of court fee. The appellant once selected to contest the forum under the Agriculture Credit Act, now it is too late to say that he may be permitted to file a civil suit and reagitate the matter which has already been finally adjudicated. After hearing the learned counsel for the appellant at length, I do not find any infirmity in the order appealed against. The appeal is dismissed summarily.;