MILAP CHANDRA, J. - (1.) THIS writ petition has been filed for quashing the order of the learned District Judge, Sriganganagar dated May 9, 1989, passed in Civil Revision No. 50/86 by which he allowed the revision petition and passed decree against the surety-petitioner also.
(2.) IT is contended by the learned counsel for the surety-petitioner that the learned District Judge, Sriganganagar was not justified to interfere in the revision petition filed under Section 17 of the Rajasthan Relief of Agricultural Indebtedness Act, 1957 as the scope of section 17 is very limited. He relied upon Banshidhar vs. Sitabai (1 ). He further contended that the learned Debt Relief Court categorically held that the petitioner put his signature on the agreement Ex. 3 as an attesting witness and not as a surety, the word 'surety' was subsequently written in the margin of the document, it was a finding of fact and it could not be disturbed in revision by the learned District Judge. In reply, it is contended by the learned counsel for the non-petitioner No. 1 that the learned District Judge was perfactly justified in disturbing the said finding of the learned Debt Relief Court, this is a perverse finding, the Debt Relief Court has not properly considered the document Ex. 3, it clearly recites in its body that the petitioner Pritam Singh has stood surety of the debtor Darbara Singh and there was no material on record to show that the word "surety" was added subsequently. It has been held in 'banshidhar vs. Sita Bai,' (supra), that under Section 17 of the Act the District Judge can interfere with the findings of the Debt Relief Court if the Judgment is contrary to law. It has been observed in it as follows: "s. 17 of the Act came up for consideration before a learned Judge of this Court in Nanda vs. District Judge, Jaipur (2), it was held that there is no doubt that the power of revision under s. 17 of the Act is wider than the power exercised by the High Court under s. 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure but this revisional power is all the same limited by the expression that the findings of the original Court are open to review only if the judgment is contrary to law. " In the body of the agreement Ex. 3, it is clearly recited" ******* The learned Debt Relief Court has not given any reason in support of his observation that the word MANIn was subsequently written on the margin of the document. The learned District Judge has discussed these points very thoroughly in his impugned judgment.
(3.) THESE facts leave no doubt that the judgment of the Debt Relief Court was contrary to law and the learned District Judge was fully justified to modify it. Thus there is no force in the writ petition. Consequently, the writ petition is dismissed. No order as to costs. .;