1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR O R D E R S.B.Civil Writ Petition No. 2875/2008 (Baldev Singh Vs. The Addl. District Judge, Srikaranpur & Anr.) ......... Date of Order : 28/08/2008 P R E S E N T HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE H.R.PANWAR Mr. B.S.Sandhu for the petitioner. Mr. G.J.Gupta for the respondent. BY THE COURT By the instant writ petition, the order Annex.4 dated 19.1.2007 passed by Civil Judge (Senior Division), Srikaranpur in DRC No. 25/2004 and order dated 27.03.2008 (Annex.6) passed by Additional District Judge, Sri Karanpur in Revision No.08/2007 have been challenged by the petitioner. I have heard learned counsel for the parties. Learned counsel for the parties submit that the controversy involved in the instant case stands concluded by the decision of this Court in Buta Singh Vs. The Addl. District Judge, Srikaranpur and Anr., S.B.Civil Writ Petition No. 2958/08 wherein this Court held that a revision petition is maintainable 2 under Section 17 of the Rajasthan Relief of Agricultural Indebtedness Act, 1957 (for short “the Act of 1957” hereinafter). In the instant case, the revision petition filed by petitioner Baldev Singh challenging the order dated 19.1.2007 passed by Civil Judge (senior Division), Sri Karanpur under Section 6 (2) of the Act of 1957 came to be dismissed only on the ground that it is not maintainable. Section 17 of the Act of 1957 reads as under:- “17. Revision of order 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) that the order is contrary to law; (b) that the court has exercised a jurisdiction not vested in it by law or has failed to exercise a jurisdiction vested in it by law. (c) that the installments fixed under sub- section (3) of section 11 are inequitable; but, subject to the orders of the District Court on such application and further subject to the provisions of section 18, the order of the Debt Relief Court shall be final.” From the order impugned, it appears that the revisional court observed that the revision petition filed by the petitioner against the dismissal of the application under Order 11 Rule 14 CPC is not maintainable and on this premise, dismissed the revision. Thus, from the operative portion of the order of the 3 revisional court, it appears that the revision petition came to be dismissed only on the ground that the revision petition is not maintainable. It is not in dispute that the proceedings are pending before Civil Judge, (Senior Division), Srikaranpur under the provisions of the Act of 1957 and Section 17 of the Act of 1957 provides that 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 grounds mentioned therein. In the circumstances, therefore, the order impugned passed by the revisional court cannot sustain and is liable to be set aside. Consequently, the writ petition is allowed. The order impugned Annex.6 dated 27.03.2008 is set aside and the matter is remanded to the revisional court to decide the revision petition on merit. The revision petition No.08/07 is restored. No order as to costs. (H.R.PANWAR), J. rp 4 S.B.CIVIL MISC. STAY PETITION NO. 5279/08 IN S.B.CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO. 2875/2008 Date of Order : 28/08/2008 P R E S E N T HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE H.R.PANWAR Mr. B.S.Sandhu for the petitioner. Mr. G.J.Gupta for the respondent. Since the writ petition itself has been allowed, the stay petition stands disposed of. (H.R.PANWAR), J. rp