1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN JAIPUR BENCH AT JAIPUR ORDER S.B.Civil Writ Petition No.1329/2001 Ghasi Vs. Radheyshyam & Ors. Date of Order :- 15.04.2009 HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE R.S.CHAUHAN Mr.Gajendra Sharma, for the petitioner. Mr.J.M. Jain, for the respondent. The petitioner has challenged the order dated 24.02.1999 passed by the Debt Relief Court, Malpura, Tonk whereby the suit filed by the creditor was allowed. He has also challenged the order dated 23.11.2000 whereby the District Judge, Tonk had dismissed the revision petition filed by the petitioner. The brief facts of the case are that the creditor, Shri Chandalal filed an application under Section 6 of the Rajasthan Agriculture Debt Relief Act, 1957 (in short the Act of 1957) in the Relief Court (Civil Judge) Tonk, Camp Malpura. In the application, he has stated that he is doing business of money lending. He has further stated that 02.09.1982, the petitioner-debtor took a loan 2 of Rs.3501/- from him at the interest of 1% per month. Again, on the same day i.e. 02.09.1998, the petitioner-debtor also took loan of Rs.2601/- at the interest of 1% per month. Both loans were taken by the petitioner-debtor in writing in the presence of Madan Lal Jain. Accordingly, till filing of the application, principal amount of Rs.6102/- and interest of Rs.2196/- total Rs.8298/- is due against the petitioner-debtor. The creditor requested the debtor to return the money, but he did not pay the same. Notice was also sent to him, but he refused to accept the same. Therefore, an application was filed claiming the aforesaid amount as per provisions of the Act. On receipt of notice, the petitioner- debtor filed reply and denied the averments of the creditor. In the reply he stated that he neither took the alleged amount from Chandalal on loan, nor gave anything in writing. He further stated that there is no licence with Chandalal for doing business of money lending. During the pendency of application the creditor chandalal expired and his legal heirs were taken on record. After hearing both the 3 parties, on 24.09.1999 the Debt Relief Court decided the application in favour of the creditor. Consequently, the petitioner-debtor filed a revision petition before the District Judge against the judgment and decree dated 24.09.1999. But on 23.11.2000, the learned District Judge dismissed the revision petition and upheld the judgment and decree dated 24.02.1999 passed by the Debt Relief Court. Hence, he has filed the present writ petition before this Court. It is the case of the petitioner that the creditor did not have a licence for doing business of money lending as is required under Section 11 of the Money Lenders Act, 1963. Therefore, the creditor could not have instituted the suit against the petitioner. A bare perusal of the impugned order clearly reveals that in fact the creditor had submitted a copy of his licence as annexure-5 and had submitted a copy of the challan by which he had deposited the money for renewal of the said licence as annexure-4. Relying on the veracity of the said annexures, the Debt Relief Court had concluded that, in fact, the creditor was a 4 licence holder. After meticulously discussing the oral and documentary evidence, the learned Debt Relief Court had allowed the suit filed by the creditor. The issue whether the creditor was a valid licence holder has also been discussed by the learned District Judge. Thus, there is neither any perversity, nor any illegality in the impugned order. Hence, this writ petition is devoid of any force. It is hereby dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. (R.S.CHAUHAN)J. Manoj Solanki