YADAV, J. - (1.) I have heard the learned counsel for the parties at length.
(2.) THE learned counsel appearing on behalf of the non- petitioner Bank raised a preliminary objection that the instant revision is not maintainable as according to him the order passed under sub-section (1) of Section 13 of the Rajasthan Agricultural Credit Operations (Removal of Difficulties) Act, 1974 (in short 'the Act of 1974') assumes the character of a decree passed by the Civil Court, therefore, an appeal lies against the order passed by the prescribed authority before (he District Judge within the meaning of Section 3 read with Sec. 96 of C. P. C. In support of his aforesaid argument the learned counsel for the non-petitioner Bank placed reliance on a decision rendered by learned Single Judge of this Court in the case of Daulat Ram vs. Punjab National Bank, (1 ). The aforesaid argument advanced on behalf of the non- petitioner Bank by learned counsel Shri PC Singhvi is refuted by learned counsel for the revisionist Shri O. P. Pungalia. According to him he has already admitted about finality attached to the order dated 3. 3. 1981 passed by Sub-Divisional Officer, Merta. According to the by Sub-Divisional learned counsel for the revisionist the initial order passed Officer on 3. 3. 1981 will be deemed to be a decree passed by Civil Court, therefore, that order had attained finality. But when the aforesaid decree was put into execution then he filed an objection u/s. 47 CPC. According to the learned counsel for the revisionist if the order passed by the prescribed authority on 3. 3. 1981 have a colour of decree for a limited purpose of execution passed by a Civil Court then whenever and wherever such order having a colour of a decree is put into execution Section 47 would come into play and the revisionist would be entitled to file an objection. Since the revisionist has come up against rejection of his application u/s. 47 CPC, therefore, he is perfectly entitled to invoke the jurisdiction of this Court under Section 115 CPC. I have given my thoughtful consideration to the rival contentions raised at the bar. I am not impressed with the argument advanced on behalf of the non-petitioner Bank to the effect that the revisionist ought to have filed an appeal before the learned District Judge u/s. 3 read with section 96 CPC.
(3.) IN my considered opinion the revisionist was perfectly justified to invoke the jurisdiction of this Court u/s. 115 CPC inasmuch as earlier it is true that the order passed u/s, 47 CPC was included with the ambit of a decree as defined under sub- section (2) of Section 2 of CPC but by Amending Act No. 104 of 1976 the words and figures of Section 47 are omitted, therefore, in my opinion if any objection is filed under said section by the revisionist before the prescribed authority then against its rejection he is justified to file a revision before this Court and an argument contrary to it is not acceptable to me. The facts and circumstances of the case of Daulat Ram (supra) are not attracted in the present case. So the preliminary objection raised by the learned counsel for the non-petitioner Bank is hereby over ruled and I propose to decide the present revision on merit. The revisionist is an agriculturist and owns agricultural land at village Harsore, Tehsil Degana, District Nagaur. She applied for loan for the purpose of purchase of ford tractor and Cheff Cutter to the non-petitioner Bank. The non-petitioner Bank sanctioned Rs. 54,000/- loan to the revisionist which was payable in instalments. It is common phenomenon in State of Rajasthan that poor peasantry has to face drought off and on so has happened in the present case also due to which the revisionist was not. in a position to pay the regular instalments due to the non-petitioner Bank. ;