Skip to content


Firm Modern Machinery Stores, Alwar Vs. the District Judge, Alwar and ors. - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
SubjectCivil
CourtRajasthan High Court
Decided On
Case NumberCivil Writ Petn. No. 629 of 1982
Judge
Reported in1983()WLN74
ActsRajasthan Relief of Agricultural Indebtedness Act, 1957 - Sections 6(2); Code of Civil Procedure (CPC) , 1908 - Sections 9
AppellantFirm Modern Machinery Stores, Alwar
RespondentThe District Judge, Alwar and ors.
Advocates: Lodha, Adv.
DispositionPetition dismissed
Excerpt:
.....earns his livelihood.;the application filed by the petitioner was not maintainable in the court of munsiff, alwar.;writ dismissed - - (2) such an application, praying for the determination of the debts outstanding against a debtor may also be filed by his creditor or his surety whether such debtor is liable for such debts individually or jointly with another per-son''a perusal of the above provisions clearly shows that under sub-section (1) of section 6 of the act of 1957 it has been clearly mentioned that an application by the debtor shall be filed before the debt relief court having jurisdiction in the area in which the debtor ordinarily resides or earns his livelihood praying for determination of his debts. thus the entire scheme of the act and the two provisions clearly show that..........been filed challenging the orders of the learned district judge. alwar, dated may 16, 1981 and the munsiff, alwar, dt. may 2. 1977, by which these two courts have taken the view that the petition filed under sub-section (2) of section 6 of the rajas-than relief of agricultural indebtedness act, 1957 (hereinafter referred to as 'the act of 1957'), is not maintainable in the court of munsiff. alwar.2. brief facts for the determination of this controversy are that the petitioner filed an application under sub-section (2) of section 6 of the act of 1957 for determination of the debts outstanding against the non-petitioner. kaluram. it is undisputed even by the petitioner that kaluram ordinarily resided in village toda machawa, tehsil laxmangarh, district alwar which falls within the.....
Judgment:
ORDER

N.M. Kasliwal, J.

1. This writ petition has been filed challenging the orders of the learned District Judge. Alwar, dated May 16, 1981 and the Munsiff, Alwar, dt. May 2. 1977, by which these two Courts have taken the view that the petition filed under Sub-section (2) of Section 6 of the Rajas-than Relief of Agricultural Indebtedness Act, 1957 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act of 1957'), is not maintainable in the Court of Munsiff. Alwar.

2. Brief facts for the determination of this controversy are that the petitioner filed an application under Sub-section (2) of Section 6 of the Act of 1957 for determination of the debts outstanding against the non-petitioner. Kaluram. It is undisputed even by the petitioner that Kaluram ordinarily resided in village Toda Machawa, Tehsil Laxmangarh, District Alwar which falls within the jurisdiction of Munsiff. Laxmangarh. The petitioner submitted this application in the Court of Munsiff. Alwar on the ground that the cause of action for giving the loan to the non-petitioner, Kaluram, arose at Alwar. Learned Munsiff, Alwar took the view that this application filed by the petitioner was not maintainable in his Court and as such passed an order for returning the same for presentation to proper Court. Learned Munsiff however, decided the case on merits also. Aggrieved against the aforesaid order of the Munsiff the petitioner filed a revision petition which was heard by learned District Judge. Alwar. Learned District Judge. Alwar held that such application could only lie where debtor ordinarily resided or earned hislivelihood as contemplated under Sub-section (1) of Section 6 of the Act of 1957. Taking this view the learned District Judge upheld the order of the Munsiff and dismissed the revision petition.

3. In these circumstances the petitioner has tiled the Present writ petition. It was contended by Mr. Lodha, learned counsel for the petitioner, that Sub-section (2) of Section 6 of the Act of 1957 empowered a creditor to move an application for the determination of the debts outstanding against the debtor. This right was an independent right granted to a creditor and the ordinary law with regard to place of sums must apply in such a case. It is contended that the cause of action in this case arose at Alwar and the respondent Kaluram has not disputed the above facts as the proceedings were taken ex parte against him as such the Munsiff. Alwar had jurisdiction to entertain and decide the application filed by the petitioner. I do not find any force in the above contention of Mr. Lodha. Section 6 (1) and (2) read as under :--

'Section 6 (1). (2) -- Application to debt relief Courts: (1) Any debtor, who is liable for debts individually, or jointly with another person, may file an application before the debt relief Court having jurisdiction in the area in which he ordinarily resides or earns his livelihood praying for determination of his debts.

(2) Such an application, praying for the determination of the debts outstanding against a debtor may also be filed by his creditor or his surety whether such debtor is Liable for such debts individually or jointly with another per-son''.

A perusal of the above provisions clearly shows that under Sub-section (1) of Section 6 of the Act of 1957 it has been clearly mentioned that an application by the debtor shall be filed before the debt relief Court having jurisdiction in the area in which the debtor ordinarily resides or earns his livelihood praying for determination of his debts. Under Sub-section (2) of Section 6 of the Act of 1957 a right has been given to the creditor also to file such an application and it does not make a mention specifically about the place where such application may be filed. However, a reading of both Sub-sections (1) and (2) together makes it abundantly clear that though an additional right has been given to a creditor to file suchapplication under Sub-section (2) of Section 6 of the Act of 1957 but it shall be the Debt Relief Court having jurisdiction on in the area in which the debtor ordinarily resides or earns his livelihood. The entire scheme of Rajasthan Relief of Agricultural Indebtedness Act 1957 itself shows that it was enacted for the benefit of an agriculturist and to grant ham relief from indebtedness. Mainly it is the debtor who has been made entitled to move such an application under Sub-section (1) of Section 6 of the Act of 1957. The language of Sub-section (2) of Section 6 of the Act of 1957 makes a mention that such an application may also be filed by his creditor or his surety. Thus the entire scheme of the Act and the two provisions clearly show that the intention of the legislature was that such an application if moved by a creditor or his surety it must also be filed before the debt relief Court mentioned in Sub-section (1) of Section 6 of the Act. The matter may be examined from another point of view also. If a creditor is permitted to file an application under Sub-section (2) of Section 6 of this Act in a place where cause of action arose hut the debtor-affriculturist did not ordinarily resided or earned his livelihood then a number of such applications can be filed by a number of creditors in different Courts on the ground of the cause of action having arisen within the jurisdiction of such Court. In that kind of case the debtor will have to go and contest such application in different Courts. On the other hand if a creditor or his surety has to file an application in the debt relief Court having jurisdiction in the area in which the debtor ordinarily resides or earns his livelihood, then it would be only one Court and the debtor-agriculturist may conveniently contest or get the determination of such application in one Court Thus I do not find any mistake or error committed by the Courts below in taking the view that in the present case the application filed by the petitioner was nor maintainable in the Court of Munsiff. Alwar. The petitioner would now be entitled for the return of this application for presentation to pro-per Court.

4. The writ petition is accordingly dismissed.


Save Judgments// Add Notes // Store Search Result sets // Organizer Client Files //