AGRAWAL, C. J. - (1.) THIS revision petition has been filed against the order dated 19. 4. 93 passed by the court below rejecting an application filed under Section 5 of the Rajasthan Relief of Agricultural Indebtedness Act, 1957 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act, 1957') for stay and abatement of suit No. 7/92.
(2.) IN nut shell, facts of this case are that plaintiff- respondent filed a suit for recovery of rent and for eviction, in the court of Civil Judge (ACJM), Hinduan on 6. 4. 92 with regard to a residential house on the ground that the petitioner-defendant mortgaged the house to the plaintiff through a registered mortgaged deed dated November 3, 1989 for a consideration of Rs. 5,000/ -. However, it did not mention the rate of interest payable to the petitioner for the money advanced. The parties thereafter calculated interest @ 4% which came to the tune of Rs. 200/ -. According to the plaintiff as the rent was not paid, he was a defaulted and liable to be evicted. On this ground, he claimed arrears of rent at the rate of Rs. 200/- p. m. and eviction on the ground of default in its payment. The suit was contested by the defendant alleging that rent note was a separate document but was a part and parcel of the mortgaged deed and as such no rent was payable by him. After filing an application Under Sec. 6 of the Act, 1957, the defendants applied under Sec. 5 of the said Act for abatement of the suit on the ground that the defendant was a debtor for declaration of which application has already been filed under Sec. 6 and, therefore, the present suit being in respondent of the rent payable falling within the scope of the Act, 1957, was liable to be stayed and abated. The Court below rejected the application, against which the defendant has filed the present revision petition. I have heard counsel for the parties. In my opinion, the order of the court below refusing to stay the suit and abating it, did not amount to case decided and as such no revision lies. Under Sec. 115 CPC, a revision lies against an order deciding the case. Sec. 115 CPC reads as under: - "115. (1) The High) Court may call for the record of any case which has been decided by any court subordinate to such High Court and in which no appeal lies thereto, and if such subordinate Court appears - (a) to have exercise a jurisdiction not vested in it by law, or (b) to have failed to exercise a jurisdiction so vested, or (c) to have acted in the exercise of its jurisdiction illegally or with material irregularity, the High Court may make such order in the case as it thinks fit: - Provided that the High Court shall not, under this section, vary or reverse any order made, of any order deciding and issue, in the course of a suit or other proceeding, except where - (a) the order, if it! had been made in favour of the party applying for revision, would have finally disposed of the suit or other proceedings, or (b) the order, if allowed to stand, would occasion a failure of justice or cause irreparable injury to the party against whom it was made. Moreover, the rejection of the application could not be challenged on the ground of error in exercise of jurisdiction.
(3.) THE suit was for eviction and for recovery of arrears of rent. It was not a suit for recovery of money, which could be presumed to be added under the Act, 1957. Power given under the Act, 1957 is only for abatement of a suit by which debt is sought to be recovered. THE court below created under the Act, 1957 did not have the power to stay or abate the suit for eviction. Counsel for the petitioner also placed reliance on Babu Lal & Others vs. Shiv Lal and Others (1) and Pooranmal Fatehchand Sarogi vs. Sushila Devi Kaushal Chand Baldar and Another . Both these cases are on their own facts and circumstances and do not render any help to the petitioner. Consequently, this revision petition fails and is dismissed. No costs. . ;