TYAGI, J.—This writ petition of creditors Badri Prasad and Kailas Chand raises an important question of law whether an Additional District Judge is competent to exercise the power of revision under sec 17 of the Rajasthan Relief of Agricultural Indebtedness Act, 1957 (hereinafter called the Act .

2. Respondent No. 3 Phadee filed an application under sec. 6 of the Act in the Debt Relief Court (Munsiff), Dholpur for the determination of his debt. The Debt Relief Court determined the debt to the extent of Rs. 3,798.75. A revision was filed against the judgment of the Debt Relief Court in the court of the Additional District Judge, Dholpur. The learned Additional District Judge while disposing of the revision application reduced the debt to Rs. 500/-. It is this judgment of the Additional District Judge that has been challenged in the present writ petition, inter alia, on the ground that the learned Additional District Judge had no jurisdi-tion to entertain and dispose of the revision application under sec. 17 of the Act.

3. Respondent No. 3 the debtor, has filed a reply to the writ petition and has averred that the District Judge, Bharatpur, by order dated 19th June, 1968, has conferred jurisdiction on the Additional District Judge, Dholpur, to decide the revision applications under sec. 17 of the Act. This order is said to have been issued by Shri M. M. Vyas, the learned District Judge, Bharatpur, in the exercise of his powers under sub sec. (3) of sec. 19 of the Rajasthan Civil Courts Ordinance. 1950, permitting the Additional District Judge sitting at Dholpur to entertain all suits, appeals and applications arising out of the local limits of the Dholpur Sub-Division as fixed by the Government under notification No. F. 19(27) Jud/68/I dated 31-5-1968. It is, therefore, contended by the respondent that revision application under sec. 17 of the Act could be entertained and disposed of by the Additional District Judge, Dholpur.

4. In order to appreciate the point in controversy, it will be relevant to reproduce sec. 17 of the Act where under the District Judge exercises the power to entertain and dispose of the revision applications, and it reads as follows :

"Sec. 17—Revision of order of Debt Relief Court - 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 instalments fixed under sub-sec. (3) of sec. 11 are inequitable

but subject to the orders of the District Court on such application and further subject to the provisions of sec. 18 the order of the Debt Relief Court shall be final."

5. There is an explanation attached to this section which clarifies as to which court in the District shall be taken to be a District Court for the purpose of sec. 17 and it says :

"Explanation—For the purpose of this section (and sec. 18, 18A and 19) the District Court shall be deemed to be the Court of the District Judge within whose civil jurisdiction the Debt Relief Court is situated "

6 Mr. Mehta, appearing on behalf of the petitioners, submits that if the opening portion of S.17 is read with the explanation attached thereto, then it becomes clear that the "District Court" as mentioned in sec.17 is the court which is presided over by the District Judge within whose jurisdiction the Debt Relief Court is situated. He further contends that the Additional District Judge cannot be included in the expression "the District Judge which means nothing but the Presiding Officer of a particular court of civil jurisdiction in the District.

7. Under sec. 8 of the Rajasthan Civil Courts Ordinance, 1950, the State Government has a power to fix the number of the District Judges to be appointed for the whole of the State of Rajasthan. It is not disputed that the J

Click Here to Read the rest of this document