Prem Chand Vs. Rajendra Singh

Prem Chand vs Rajendra Singh

Disposition Petition dismissed Court Rajasthan Decided Sep 26, 2001

~5 min read

https://sooperkanoon.com/case/757073

For advocates & juniors · 7-day free trial

Brief this judgment before chambers

Stop skimming 50 pages - get an 18-section AI Brief on this case, ask scoped follow-ups, and find related precedents with Semantic Search. Full trial, no card required.

18-section brief - facts, issues, ratio, relief
Ask this case - answers cite the judgment
Semantic search - find precedents by meaning
Research drawer - sections, cites, related cases

Citation: sooperkanoon.com/757073
Court: Rajasthan High Court
Judge: Arun Madan, J.
Decided On: Sep 26, 2001
Case Number: S.B. Civil Revision Petition No. 1207 of 2000
Subject: Civil
Disposition: Petition dismissed

Case Summary

AI-generated summary - not the official court judgment text.

- Section 2(k), 2(1), 7 & 40 & Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Rules, 2007, Rule 12 & 98 & Juvenile Justice Act, 1986, Section 2(h): [Altamas Kabir & Cyriac Joseph, JJ] Determination as to Juvenile - Appellant was found to have completed the age of 16 years and 13 days on the date of alleged oc...

Key legal issue: Civil
Outcome / disposition: Petition dismissed
Acts & sections: Code of Civil Procedure (CPC) - Sections 21(2)

Parties & Advocates

Appellant / Petitioner

Prem Chand

Advocate Rajesh Kapoor, Adv.

Respondent

Rajendra Singh

Advocate R.D. Rastogi, Adv.

Legal References

Acts: Code of Civil Procedure (CPC) - Sections 21(2)
Reported In: 2002(2)WLC320

Excerpt

- section 2(k), 2(1), 7 & 40 & juvenile justice (care and protection of children) rules, 2007, rule 12 & 98 & juvenile justice act, 1986, section 2(h): [altamas kabir & cyriac joseph, jj] determination as to juvenile - appellant was found to have completed the age of 16 years and 13 days on the date of alleged occurrence - appellant was arrested on 30.11.1998 when the 1986 act was in force and under clause (h) of section 2 a juvenile was described to mean a child who had not attained the age of sixteen years or a girl who had not attained the age of eighteen years - it is with the enactment of the juvenile justice act, 2000, that in section 2(k) a juvenile or child was defined to mean a child who had not completed eighteen years of a ge which was given prospective prospect - appellant was about sixteen years of age on the date of commission of the alleged offence and had not completed eighteen years of age when the juvenile justice act, 2000, came into force - juvenile act, of 2000 has been given retrospective effect by rule 12 of juvenile justice rule, 2007 - as such, accused has to be treated as juvenile under the said act. - 28.4.2000. thus viewed, once the party 'petitioner herein' has failed to raise any objection as to the competence or jurisdiction of the court at the earliest possible opportunity at the first instance of the court in the suit, the same cannot be allowed to be taken before any appellate or revisional court, inasmuch as, the present petitioner for the first time when the review petition was filed by the plaintiff and only in reply thereto has raised an unsustainable plea as to the competence or jurisdiction of the court, the same cannot be allowed by virtue of provisions under section 27(2) cpc. 28.4.2000 has committed any illegality or material irregularity or has failed to exercise jurisdiction so vested or have exercised jurisdiction not vested in it by law by rejecting the plea of defendant petitioner as to the..........civil judge (jd) ajmer east whereby review petition under order 47 rule 1 cpc was partly allowed for adding word 'till realization' in the decree & judgment in respect of interest, has been challenged by defendant prem chand.2. it is an admitted fact that the learned trial courl had decreed the plaintiff's suit along with interest @ 12% p.a. under issue no.5 in the main suit. but, the plaintiff (respondent) moved a review petition under order 47 rule 1 cpc claiming 18%insiead of 12% p.a. on the decretal amount so also for specifying the period of interest. in reply to the said review petition it was the case on behalf of the defendant by raising an objection that the plaintiff ought to have resorted to the remedy under the rajasthan relief of agricultural indebtedness act, 1957 for short 'the act' instead of having filed the suit under order 37 rule 1 cpc.3. after hearing the arguments of the parties, the learned trial court though declined to revise the rate of interest 12% originally granted under the decree, to therate of interest @ 18% p.a. claimed in the review petition, but rectifying the inadvertent mistake as to the period to which the interest will continue, it partly accepted the review petition and ordered to add the word 'till realization' in the original decree.4. the only contention raised by shri rajesh kapoor on behalf of the defendant is that the defendant being a member of scheduled caste, the civil suit was not maintainable by virtue of act because according to shri kapoor finding of trial court that since the amount was taken for house hold work provisions of the act were not attracted and the suit was rightly filed under order 37 rule 1 cpc, is patently illegal because the act provided that it does all also apply to debtor belonging to the scheduled caste irrespective of the fact whether loan was taken for agriculture purpose or otherwise.5. per contra, learned counsel for the plaintiff contended that this is a revision petition against the.....

Full Judgment

Madan, J.

1. By this revision petition an order dt. 28.8.2000 of the Civil Judge (JD) Ajmer East whereby review petition under Order 47 Rule 1 CPC was partly allowed for adding word 'till realization' in the decree & judgment in respect of interest, has been challenged by defendant Prem Chand.

2. It is an admitted fact that the learned trial Courl had decreed the plaintiff's suit along with interest @ 12% p.a. under issue No.5 in the main suit. But, the plaintiff (respondent) moved a review petition under Order 47 Rule 1 CPC claiming 18%insiead of 12% p.a. on the decretal amount so also for specifying the period of interest. In reply to the said review petition it was the case on behalf of the defendant by raising an objection that the plaintiff ought to have resorted to the remedy under the Rajasthan Relief of Agricultural Indebtedness Act, 1957 for short 'the Act' instead of having filed the suit under Order 37 Rule 1 CPC.

3. After hearing the arguments of the parties, the learned trial Court though declined to revise the rate of interest 12% originally granted under the decree, to therate of interest @ 18% p.a. claimed in the review petition, but rectifying the inadvertent mistake as to the period to which the interest will continue, it partly accepted the review petition and ordered to add the word 'till realization' in the original decree.

4. The only contention raised by Shri Rajesh Kapoor on behalf of the defendant is that the defendant being a member of Scheduled Caste, the civil suit was not maintainable by virtue of Act because according to Shri Kapoor finding of trial Court that since the amount was taken for house hold work provisions of the Act were not attracted and the suit was rightly filed under Order 37 Rule 1 CPC, is patently illegal because the Act provided that it does all also apply to debtor belonging to the Scheduled Caste irrespective of the fact whether loan was taken for agriculture purpose or otherwise.

5. Per contra, learned counsel for the plaintiff contended that this is a revision petition against the order deciding the petition for review in the decree and unless and until the main decree and the judgment is challenged raising the objection as to the maintainability of the suit is altered, the defendant can't challenge it in this revision petition.

6. Having considered rival contentions of the parties and perused the impugned order of the trial Court having been passed in review petition of the plaintiff (respondent), I am of the considered view that this revision petition not at all maintainable by virtue of provisions under Sub-section (2) of Section 21 CPC which inter-alia provides that no objection as to the competence of the court with reference to the pecuniary limits of its jurisdiction shall be allowed by any appellate or revisional court unless such objection was taken in the court of first instance at the earliest possible opportunity. During the course of argument, it has been fairly conceded by the learned counsel for the petitioner that plea of the party being Scheduled Caste though was not specifically raised by way of an application to leave the defend as per Order 37 Rule 3(5) CPC nor any such application was filed except by raising objection in review petition. That apart, it is not in dispute that the trial Court while granting the decree for recovery of amount has already decided such an issue Finally against the petitioner vide the decree dt. 28.4.2000. thus viewed, once the party 'petitioner herein' has failed to raise any objection as to the competence or jurisdiction of the Court at the earliest possible opportunity at the first instance of the Court in the suit, the same cannot be allowed to be taken before any appellate or revisional court, inasmuch as, the present petitioner for the first time when the review petition was filed by the plaintiff and only in reply thereto has raised an unsustainable plea as to the competence or jurisdiction of the court, the same cannot be allowed by virtue of provisions under Section 27(2) CPC.

7. Hence, in my considered opinion, I do not find that the learned trial Court while deciding plaintiff's petition for review of decree dt. 28.4.2000 has committed any illegality or material irregularity or has failed to exercise jurisdiction so vested or have exercised jurisdiction not vested in it by law by rejecting the plea of defendant petitioner as to the applicability of the aforesaid Act. Thus, the learned trial Court has rightly held that for the recovery of amount under decree, taken by the defendant petitioner provisions under Order 37 Rule 1 CPC are attracted. That apart, admittedly neither any appeal has been filed nor the impugned decree has ever been challenged till date. Even judgment & decree dated 28.4.2000 of the trial Court have not been produced nor shown during the course of arguments nor any reference thereof has been made in the, memo of revision petition which lacks of many facts & circumstances and pleadings taken before the trial Court. So on this ground also, this revision petition is not maintainable.

8. As a result of the above discussion, the petition stands dismissed with no order as to costs.

Same Court & Year Rajasthan · 2001 Same Parties Prem Chand vs Rajendra Singh Same Subject Civil Same Judge Arun Madan, J. Acts & Sections Code of Civil Procedure (CPC) - Sections 21(2)

Civil