1 VIJAY KUMAR VS. THE DISTRICT JUDGE, SRI GANGANAGAR & ORS. (S.B.CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO. 3251/08) Dated:- 27.7.2009. HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE SANGEET LODHA Mr. Vijay Kumar, for the petitioner. None present for the respondents no. 1 & 2. Mr. Trilok Joshi, for the respondent no.3. 1. This writ petition is directed against order dated 6.11.06 passed by the Additional District Judge, Raisinghnagar, whereby the Revision Petition preferred by the respondent no. 3 under the provisions of Section 17 of Rajasthan Relief of Agricultural Indebtedness Act, 1957 ( in short “the Act of 1957” hereinafter), against the order dated 7.8.03 passed by Debt Relief Court on Review Application filed by the petitioner seeking review of order dated 27.1.03 rejecting the application of the petitioner u/s 6(2) of the Act of 1957 , has been allowed and accordingly, order dated 7.8.03 of the Debt Relief Court, stands set aside. 2. The respondent no. 3, who is an agriculturist took a loan of Rs.75,000/- from the petitioner and executed a pro note and receipt in his favour. Since, the debtor-respondent no. 3 refused to repay the loan, therefore, the petitioner preferred an application u/s 6(2) of the Act of 1957 before the Debt Relief Court [Civil Judge(S.D.) ], Raisinghnagar for determination of the debt outstanding against him. The petitioner claimed 2 principal amount of Rs.75,000/- and interest thereon amounting to Rs.51,750/-, aggregating to Rs.1,26,750/-. 3. The respondent no. 3 did not file any reply therefore, his right to reply was closed. In support of the claim, the petitioner submitted his own affidavit and an affidavit of one Shri Nihal Chand. The petitioner so also Shri Nihal Chand were examined orally as well. The petitioner also produced documentary evidence, pro note (Ex.1), receipt(Ex.2) , agreement(Ex.3) and Zamabandi(Ex.4). The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent pleaded “No instructions” therefore, the witnesses were not cross examined. 4. It is submitted that inadvertently, in the affidavits filed , the loan amount was mentioned as Rs.37,500/- i.e. half of the amount of actual loan Rs.75,000/-. After consideration of the evidence on record, the application preferred by the petitioner was rejected by the Debt Relief Court vide order dated 27.1.03, on the ground that there is contradiction in oral and documentary evidence therefore, the transaction between the parties appears to be suspicious. 5. The petitioner preferred an application u/s 18 of the Act of 1957 before the Debt Relief Court for review of order dated 27.1.03. It was submitted on behalf of the petitioner that the affidavits filed were prepared by the clerk of his counsel and on account of his inadvertent mistake, the amount of loan was 3 mentioned as Rs. 37,500/- therein . After due consideration, the Debt Relief Court found the mistake to be bona fide and accordingly,vide order dated 7.8.03, posted the matter for rehearing. 6. Aggrieved by order dated 7.8.03, the respondent no. 3 preferred a revision petition before the District Judge, Sri Ganganagar, which later stood transferred to the Additional District Judge, Raisinghnagar. After hearing both the parties, the revision petition has been allowed by the revisional court holding that the grounds set out in the review application do not fall within the ambit and scope of the grounds specified for review of an order under Order XLVII Rule 1 of Civil Procedure Code. Hence, this petition. 7. It is contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner that no fetters or conditions have been put on power of review u/s 18 of the Act of 1957 and therefore, the scope of review u/s 18 is much wider than the scope of review under XLVII Rule 1 of CPC. The learned counsel submitted that in the oral statement of the petitioner, all documents produced were exhibited and no question was put to the witnesses regarding the amount of loan therefore, the mistake occurred while filing the affidavit remained unnoticed. The learned counsel submitted that in the pleadings , the amount of loan has been specifically mentioned as Rs.75,000/- and the documentary evidence i.e. pro note and 4 receipt exhibited in evidence makes it abundantly clear that the amount of loan advanced by the petitioner to the respondent no. 3 was Rs.75,000/- and not Rs.37,500/- as mentioned in the affidavits filed. The learned counsel submitted that as a matter of fact, an amount of Rs.37,500/- was mentioned in the pro note as half of the loan amount Rs.75,000/- and therefore, inadvertently, while preparing the affidavits, on account of bona fide mistake, half the amount of loan was mentioned therein. The learned counsel submitted that the Debt Relief Court having arrived at a categorical finding that the mistake on the part of the petitioner was bona fide then, there was no occasion for the revisional court to interfere with the order passed by the Debt Relief Court directing rehearing of the matter . The learned counsel submitted that the order impugned passed by the revisional court has resulted in miscarriage of justice. 8. Per contra, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent no. 3 submitted that there was no error apparent on the face of record and therefore, the Debt Relief Court had seriously erred in allowing the review application. The learned counsel submitted that the order dated 27.1.03 was passed by the Debt Relief Court after due examination of the material on record therefore, the order could not have been reviewed on the grounds set out in the review application. The learned counsel submitted that the order passed by the revisional court does not 5 suffer from any such error warranting interference of this court in exercise of its supervisory jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India and therefore, the writ petition deserves to be dismissed. 9. I have considered the rival submissions and perused the material on record. 10. It is settled law that a court or a tribunal has no inherent power of review and it must be conferred by law either specifically or by implication. Admittedly, Section 18 of the Act of 1957 makes a specific provision for review of order passed by the Debt Relief Court or the District court, which reads as under:- “18. Review.- A Debt Relief Court, or the District Court which has passed any order under section 17, may either on its own motion at any time or on an application from any person interested made within sixty days of the passing of any order, review the order so passed and pass any other order in reference thereto, as it thinks fit: Provided that no order once passed shall be varied or reversed unless notice has been given to the persons interested to appear and be heard in support thereof.” 11. It is true that the power of review u/s 18 of the Act of 1957 is not circumscribed by the definitive limits . But then, the power of review has inherent limitation and a party is not entitled to seek a review of a judgment of the court for the purpose of rehearing or decision of the case afresh. Thus, even if the provisions of Order XLVII Rule 1 specifying the grounds for 6 review of an order do not apply to review proceedings before the Debt Relief Court under the Act of 1957, in view of the specific provisions for review incorporated in Section 18, then too, there is no reason as to why the well recognised principles governing the review of an order underlying the provisions of Order XLVII Rule 1 CPC cannot be invoked by the Debt Relief Court while deciding an application for review preferred u/s 18 of the Act of 1957. Thus, in considered opinion of this court, the revisional court has committed no error in invoking the provisions of Order XLVII Rule 1 CPC, while deciding the review application preferred by the petitioner under Section 18 of the Act of 1957. 12. Adverting to the facts of the present case, it is to be noticed that in the application for determination of debt filed by the petitioner, it was specifically mentioned that the petitioner had advanced a loan of Rs.75,000/- to the respondent no. 3 and accordingly, a pro note and a receipt was executed in his favour. The pro note and receipt have been exhibited in evidence before the learned Debt Relief Court. It is not in dispute that in the aforesaid documents produced ,the amount of loan is mentioned as Rs.75,000/-. The documents have been exhibited in the course of oral statement of the petitioner recorded by the learned trial court therefore, it is absolutely incorrect to state there exists contradiction in the oral statements and the documentary evidence produced. The order passed by the Debt 7 Relief Court emphasizing much on the mistake crept in the affidavits filed, ignoring other evidence on record was an error apparent on the face of record. Therefore, considering the bona fide mistake on the part of the petitioner, so as to sub serve the cause of justice, the order passed by the Debt Relief Court directing rehearing of the matter, cannot be faulted with. 13. For the aforementioned reasons, in considered opinion of this court, the revisional court has committed an error in interfering with the order dated 7.8.03 passed by the Debt Relief Court directing rehearing of the matter. 14. In the result, the writ petition succeeds, it is hereby allowed. The order impugned dated 6.11.06 passed by the Additional District Judge, Raisinghnagar in Civil (DRA) Revision Petition No. 2/04 is set aside and the order dated 7.8.03 passed by the Debt Relief Court is restored. The Debt Relief Court is directed to decide the application of the petitioner afresh expeditiously in accordance with law, preferably within a period of four months from the date of this order. The parties are directed to appear before the Debt Relief Court, Raisinghnanagar on 17th August,09.No order as to costs. (SANGEET LODHA),J. Aditya/-