GARG, J. - (1.) THIS writ petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India has been filed by the petitioners on 27. 1. 1988 against the respondents with the prayer that by an appropriate writ, order or direction, the judgment (Annex. 2) dated 7. 10. 1987 passed by the learned Addl. District Judge, Bali by which he accepted the revision petition of the respondent No. 1 Chatra Ram (hereinafter referred to as "the deceased)". (now represented by his LRs.) and set aside the judgment and decree dated 2. 12. 1982 passed by the learned Dept Relief Court (Munsiff Magistrate, Bali) by which learned Dept Relief Court accepted the claim of the petitioners filed under Section 6 of the Rajasthan Relief of Agricultural Indebtedness Act, 1957 (hereinafter referred to as "the Act of 1957") for Rs. 800/- in favour of the petitioner No. 1 Modi Lal and for Rs. 1091/- in favour of the petitioner No. 2 Kheta Ram, be quashed and set aside.
(2.) IT arises in the following circumstances :- The petitioner No. 1 Modi Lal advanced a loan of Rs. 800/- to deceased Chatra Ram for purchase of an ox and in lieu of that, he executed receipt and pronote (Ex. 1) on 8. 7. 1973 in favour of the petitioner No. 1 Modi Lal. Since the amount was not paid by the deceased Chatra Ram and since he was an agriculturist, a claim was filed by the petitioner No. 1 Modi Lal against the deceased Chatra Ram under Section 6 of the Act of 1957 before the Debt Relief Court (Munsiff Magistrate, Bali ). The deceased Chatra Ram filed a reply and disputed the factum of execution of pronote and receipt. During the pendency of the application of the petitioner No. 1 Modi Lal, another claim under Section 6 of the Act of 1957 was filed by the petitioner No. 2 Kheta Ram and the case of the petitioner No. 2 Kheta Ram was that deceased Chatra Ram obtained a loan of Rs. 1091/- in cash and executed pronote (Ex. 2) in favour of the petitioner No. 2 Kheta Ram. Thereafter, evidence was led by both the parties before the Debt Relief Court (Munsiff Magistrate, Bali ). After hearing both the parties, the learned Debt Relief Court (Munsiff Magistrate, Bali) through judgment and decree dt. 2. 12. 1982 (Annex. 1) decreed the claim of both the petitioners against the deceased Chatra Ram in the manner as indicated above. Aggrieved from the said judgment and decree dated 2. 12. 1982 (Annex. 1) passed by the learned Dept Relief Court (Munsiff Magistrate, Bali), a revision was filed by the deceased Chatra Ram before the Court of Addl. District Judge, Sirohi as at that time, the jurisdiction was with the Court of Addl. District Judge, Sirohi and later-on, a separate Court of Addl. District Judge was created at Bali and thus, the case was first transferred to the Court of District Judge, Pali and later on, it was transferred to the Court of Addl. District Judge, Bali. After hearing both the parties, the learned Addl. District Judge, Bali through his judgment dated 7. 10. 1987 (Annex. 2) accepted the revision of the deceased Chatraram and set aside the judgment and decree (Annex. 1) dated 2. 12. 1982 passed by the learned Debt Relief Court (Munsiff Magistrate, Bali) holding inter-alia :- (i) That signatures of the deceased Chatra Ram on pronotes Ex. 1 and Ex. 2 were found doubtful. (ii) That petitioners have failed to prove execution of pronotes Ex. 1 and Ex. 2 in their favour by the deceased Chatra Ram. Aggrieved from the said judgment dated 7. 10. 1987 (Annex. 2) passed by the learned Addl. District Judge, Bali, this writ petition has been filed by the petitioners. In this writ petition, the following submissions have been made by the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners :- (i) That the learned Addl. District Judge, Bali had no jurisdiction to entertain and decide the revision under Section 17 of the Act of 1957 as only the competent court to hear and decide revision under Section 17 of the Act of 1957 was the Court of District Judge, Pali and from this point of view, the judgment of the learned Addl. District Judge, Bali dated 7. 10. 1987 (Annex. 2) is without jurisdiction and should be quashed and set aside. (ii) That since the learned Addl. District Judge, Bali was hearing a revision, therefore, by reversing the findings of facts, he committed a clear error of law as it was not open for him while exercising revisional jurisdiction to disturb the findings of facts recorded by the learned Debt Relief Court (Munsiff Magistrate, Bali) through judgment and decree dated 2. 12. 1982 (Annex. 1 ). Hence, from this point of view also, the impugned judgment Annex. 2 dated 7. 10. 1987 cannot be sustained and liable to be quashed and set aside. He has placed reliance on the decisions of this Court in Banshidhar vs. Smt. Sita Bai (1) and Nanda vs. The District Judge, Jaipur District, Jaipur & Ors. On the other hand, it has been submitted by the learned counsel appearing for the respondents :- (i) That there is a divergence of views amongst the Judges of this Court, but the view expressed in Jiya Ram and Ors. vs. Judge, Debt Relief Court, Ganganagar and Ors. (3), appears to be reasonable and bonafide one as the District Judge includes Addl. District Judge and Addl. District Judge can discharge functions of District Judge and furthermore, in Section 17 of the Act of 1957, a revision lies before the District Court and it is nowhere stated in Section 17 that Court would be of principle Court of civil original jurisdiction and thus, from this point of view also, the Addl. District Judge was fully competent to hear and decide the revision under Section 17 of the Act of 1957. (ii) That on second point, it was submitted that no doubt u/sec. 17 of the Act of 1957, a revision lies against the judgment of the learned Debt Relief Court, but the scope of Section 17 of the Act of 1957 is wider than as provided under Section 115 CPC. Hence, the findings of facts recorded by the learned Debt Relief Court (Munsiff Magistrate, Bali) were reversed by the learned Addl. District Judge, Bali after giving cogent reasons and that act of the learned Addl. District Judge, Bali was within jurisdiction and cannot be challenged now in writ petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India. Hence, the writ petition filed by the petitioners be dismissed. I have heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners and the learned counsel appearing for the respondents and gone through the materials available on record. Point No. 1 For convenience, the relevant provisions of Section 17 of the Act of 1957 and the explanation attached to it are quoted here :- " Section 17. Revision of order of Debt Relief Courts- Any person aggrieved by an order of a Debt Relief Court may, within ninety days of such order, apply to the District Court for revision of the order on any of the following grounds :- (a ). . . . . . . . . . . (b ). . . . . . . . . . . (c ). . . . . . . . . . . Explanation-For the purposes of the Section (and section 18, 18a and 19 ( the District Court shall be deemed to be the Court of the District Judge within whose civil jurisdiction the Debt Relief Court is situate. "
(3.) A bare perusal of the above definition clearly reveals that it is nowhere mentioned in Section 17 of the Act of 1957 that the District Judge would be that person, who presides over the principal court or civil original jurisdiction of the Judicial District created by the Government. This is one of the aspects of the matter. This Court in the case of Jiya Ram (supra), which was also on interpretation of Section 17 of the Act of 1957, came to the conclusion that the Addl. District Judge can discharge the functions of District Judge and in such a situation, the decision of the Addl. District Judge cannot be termed to be without jurisdiction. But, there is a contrary view of this Court in Badri Prasad and Anr. vs. Addl. District Judge, Dholpur and Ors. (4), where this Court came to the conclusion that Additional District Judge was not competent to exercise the power of revision under Section 17 of the Act of 1957. ;