1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR D.B. Civil Special Appeal (Writ) No.377/08 Kanhaiya Lal vs. Shyam Lal & Anr. Date of Order :: 4th August, 2008 PRESENT HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR. NARAYAN ROY HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MOHAMMAD RAFIQ Mr. S.M. Ali for the appellant Mr. S.C. Gupta for the respondents. (Per-Hon'ble Mohammad Rafiq,J.) For the reasons stated in the application seeking condonation of delay, we are satisfied that the appellant was prevented by sufficient cause in not filing this appeal within the prescribed period of limitation. The delay is therefore condoned. The matter was heard on merits. Under challenge in this appeal is the judgement dated 10.9.07 whereby the learned Single Judge while dismissing the writ petition of the appellant upheld the order passed by the District Judge, Samai Madhopur rejecting his revision petition as also the order 2 dated 25.4.2001 passed by Debt Relief Court against which the revision petition was filed. Shri S.M. Ali, learned counsel for the appellant has argued that neither the courts below, nor the learned Single Judge correctly appreciated the evidence. The findings recorded by the courts in all the impugned orders with regard to compliance of Section 10 of the Rajasthan Relief of Agricultural Indebtness Act, 1947 (for short-`the Act') are based on misreading and misapplication of those provisions. Learned counsel referred to the documents Ex.A-1 and Ex.A-2 filed before the Debt Relief Court and argued that in fact these two documents were statement of accounts given to the appellant by the respondent with regard to original loan of Rs.2,000/- which the respondents gave to the appellant in the year 1990. The respondent when he was examined before the Debt Relief Court clearly 3 admitted this fact in his statement that these documents were written in his own handwriting and pertained to the loan advanced to the petitioner in 1990. Learned counsel therefore submitted that according to Section 10 of the Act, the Debt Relief Court was mandatorily required to reopen of the transactions carried during last 15 years to ascertain the amount and the date of originally advanced loan and the amount of interest and principal and if eventually found that the aggregate of the amounts credited in the account of the interest is equal to the total amount of principal, no further interest thereupon would then be payable. It was argued that the aforesaid two documents prove that even though the petitioner was originally advanced loan of Rs.2,000/-, but he paid more than the principal amount, therefore, nothing could thereafter be directed to be recovered from him. 4 Shri S.C. Gupta, learned counsel for the respondent opposed the appeal and argued that all the courts below have analysed the evidence in true perspective and found that the loan of the amount of Rs.16,385/- was advanced to the petitioner for the first time on 18.9.94. Ex.A-2 clearly indicates the dates and the amount of installments and the dates on which they were to be repaid by the appellant to the respondent. It was argued that respondent never admitted in his statement before the Debt Relief Court that this amount was outstanding against the originally advanced loan of Rs.2,000/-. In fact, the respondent clearly stated that this amount was given by him to the appellant as a fresh loan on 18.9.1994. Learned counsel argued that Section 10 has no application to the present controversy, because that Section is intended to be applied where compound interest is 5 charged or the loan is advanced against mortgage of the property, while in the present case, there is none. The learned court below has awarded the original amount with simple interest of 6%. Even otherwise, the limitation of 15 years as envisaged in Section 10(1) would not apply to the present case because the loan was advanced on 18.9.94 and within two years thereof the claim was filed before the Debt Relief Court. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the impugned order, we do not find any substance in the argument of the appellant that the respondent in his cross examination before the first court admitted that the amount of Rs.16,385/- was outstanding against the originally advanced loan of Rs.2,000/-. In fact, the respondent clearly stated that this was paid to the appellant as a fresh loan on 18.9.1994 and the statement of account contained in Ex.A-1 was relating to the earlier 6 advanced loan. The other argument that has been raised by the learned counsel for the appellant with regard to non compliance of various provisions of Section 10 especially about the amount of interest are therefore not tenable. Even otherwise, quantum of the amount and the date on which it was advanced are questions of fact and all the courts below have concurrently decided against the appellant on these questions. No interference on the findings of facts recorded by the Courts below is called for as those findings, in our view, cannot be said to be perverse or otherwise erroneous. In our view, none of the impugned orders suffer from any such error apparent on the face of record justifying our interference. We do not find any merit in this appeal, which is accordingly dismissed. RS/- (Mohammad Rafiq),J. (Narayan Roy), C.J.