JASRAJ CHOPRA, J. - (1.) THESE two revision petitions one filed by petitioner Daulatram and the other filed by petitioner Bhaddar Sen, raise similar legal question and, therefore, they were heard together and now, they are being decided by a common order.
(2.) IT is alleged that the respondent Punjab National Bank through its Branch Manager, Srikaranpur filed applications before the prescribed authority i. e. Sub-Divisional Officer, Sri Ganganagar against the petitioners Daulatram and Bhadder Sen for the recovery of Rs. 37,076. 72p and Rs. 56,838. 90p. respectively under the Rajasthan Agricultural Credit Operations (Removal of Difficulties) Act,1974 (for short 'the Act' herein) These applications were filed on 12. 10. 1984 and on the same day, the competent authority issued attachment warrants. Against this order of the learned Sub-Divisional Officer, Sri Ganganagar, revision petitions were filed by the petitioners before the Board of Revenue but they were dismissed on the ground that the Board of Revenue has no jurisdiction under the Act because the impugned order has been passed by Civil Court and, therefore, any appeal or revision against the order of the Civil Court would lie to the Civil Court. It is alleged that ex parte orders were passed by the competent authority in both these cases on 23. 6. 1987 and on the very next day, the petitioners submitted applications for setting aside the ex parte orders mentioning therein that due to marriage, the learned counsel for the petitioners was not present in the Court and petitioners could not attend the Court on account of the death of their relative. These application came to be dismissed by an order dated 27. 6. 1988 of the Prescribed authority. Aggrieved against that order dated 27. 6. 1988, appeals were filed before the learned Additional District Judge No. 1, Sri Ganganagar Camp at Srikaranpur and these appeal came to be dismissed on 23. 7. 1988 on the ground that as the Act does not provide for an appeal, no appeal is maintainable and the learned Addl. District Judge has no authority to hear any appeal. It is against this order dated 23. 7. 1988 passed by the learned Additional District Judge No. l. Sri Ganganagar Camp at Srikaranpur that these two revision petitions have been filed. It is the admitted case of the parties that the Act does not provide specifically for filing of an appeal. s. l3 (2) of the Act reads as Follows: S. 13 (2) Every order passed by the prescribed authority in terms of sub-s (l) shall be deemed to be decree of a civil court and shall be executed by him in the same manner as a decrees of such court. Explanation : For the purpose of exercising powers conferred by this sub-s the prescribed authority shall be deemed to a civil court. " It was contended by Mr. S. L. Jain, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners that the prescribed authority in passing an order on the application filed by the Bank under s. 13 of the Act has been treated to be a Civil Court and any order passed by the Prescribed Authority in terms of sub-s. (l) of s. 13 of the Act been deemed to be a decree of the Civil Court and it has been made executable in the same manner as decrees of the Civil Court. He has, therefore, content that the Court i. e. the prescribed Authority being treated to be a Civil Court and the order passed by it under Sec. 13 (1) of the Act has been treated to be a decree and is executable as a decree, an appeal lies against such an order, under s. 3 read with s. 96 of the Code of Civil procedure. This contention is seriously opposed by Mr. N. P. Gupta, the learned counsel appearing for the respondent. He has submitted that the right of appeal is the creature of the statute. It does not provide for any right of appeal and therefore, no right of appeal can claimed and order passed by the learned Addl. District Judge is perfectly valid and does not deserve to be set aside.
(3.) OUR attention has drawn by Mr. N. P. Gupta, the learned counsel appearing for the respondents on a Division Bench decision of this Court in Sainiks Motors V. S. T. Authority (1), wherein it has been held that appeals are creations of statute and unless a person can bring himself within the four corners of the Statute law prescribing appeals, he cannot go before any appellate authority. Reliance has also been placed on a decision of this Court in Kishanlal V. Sohanlal (2), wherein it has been observed that a right of appeal is a creation of statute, and it is to the statute alone that Courts must look to determine whether such a right a in exists particular instance or no. Further, there is noting unreasonable or wrong that a right of appeal to the highest tribunal in the State is circumscribed by certain well- defined restrictions. Mr. Gupta has further placed reliance on a decision of their lordships of the Supreme Court in Ganga Bai V. Vijay Kumar (3), wherein it has been observed that there is an inherent right in every person to bring a suit of civil nature and unless the suit is barred by statute, one may, at one's peril, bring a suit of one's choice. A suit for its maintainability requires no authority of law and it is enough that no statute bars the suit. But the position in regard* to appeals is quite the opposite. The right of appeal inherent in no one and therefore, an appeal for its maintainability must have the clear authority of law. That explains why the right of appeal is described as a creature of statute ;