1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN JAIPUR BENCH AT JAIPUR ORDER S.B.Civil Writ Petition No.1900/2005 (Ram Swaroop Vs. Heera Lal & Ors.) Date of Order :- 27.01.2009 HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE R.S.CHAUHAN Mr.Tek Chand Rahul, for the petitioner. Mr.Deepak Goyal, for the respondents. The petitioner has challenged the order dated 30th August, 1997 passed by the Agriculture Debt Relief (Civil Judge (Sr.Div.) Court, Bayana whereby the learned Magistrate has allowed the suit filed by the respondent No.1 against the petitioner under Section 6 of the Rajasthan Agriculture Debt Relief Act ('the Act', for short). The petitioner has also challenged the order dated 27th September, 2004 passed by the District Judge, Bharatpur whereby the learned Judge has partly allowed the revision petition filed by the petitioner. The Brief facts of the case are that On 03.05.1992, the petitioner took a loan of Rs.20,000/- from the respondent No.1. When the loan amount was not repaid by the petitioner, the respondent No.1 filed a claim petition under 2 Section 6 of the Act for recovery of loan amount along with interest before the Agriculture Debt Relief Court, Bayana. In reply, the petitioner denied having taken any loan amount from the respondent No.1. He also claimed that the respondent was not a money lender, and was not having valid licence for it. He further claimed that the loan agreement was insufficiently stamped. The learned trial Court after hearing both the side, vide its order dated 30.08.1997 directed the petitioner to pay a sum of Rs.20,000/- along with interest. Being dissatisfied with the order and decree of the trial Court dated 30.08.1997, the petitioner filed a Revision Petition before the Court of District Judge, Bharatpur. The learned Judge vide his judgment and decree dated 27.09.2004, reduced the loan amount, and partly allowed the revision petition. The petitioner being dis-satisfied by the orders dated 30.08.1997 and 27.09.2994, he has filed the present writ petition before this Court. The sole contention raised by Mr. Tek Chand Rahul, the learned counsel for the petitioner, is that the Provisions of Money Lenders Act are applicable to a suit filed under 3 the Rajasthan Agriculture Debt relief Act. Since respondent No.1 did not have a licence as required under Sections 22 and 23 of the Money Lenders Act, he could not have filed the suit under the Rajasthan Agriculture Debt Relief Act. Therefore, the suit should have been dismissed by the learned Magistrate. On the other hand, Mr. Deepak Goyal, the learned counsel for the respondent No.1, has pointed out that according to the learned magistrate, the counsel for the petitioner had clearly conceded in the Court that the Provisions of Money Lenders Act are inapplicable to a suit filed under the Rajasthan Agriculture Debt Relief Act. Therefore, the issue whether the Money Lenders Act was applicable or not, was not decided by the learned Magistrate. Moreover, once the concession has been made by the learned counsel for the petitioner, provisions of Section 22 and 23 do not affect the maintainability of the suit under the Rajasthan Agriculture Debt Relief Act. Moreover, the Revisional Court had noticed the concession made by the learned counsel for the petitioner before the Trial Court. Therefore, the order dated 27th September, 2004 is legally valid. 4 Heard the learned counsel for the parties and with their consent, this case is being decided finally at the admission stage itself. Once a concession has been made by the learned counsel for the petitioner before the trial Court that the provisions of Money Lenders Act were inapplicable, the question of dismissing the suit does not even arise. Therefore, the order dated 30th August, 1997 is absolutely valid and legal. Since a valid order has been upheld by the order dated 27th September, 2004, there is no perversity in the said order. In this view of the matter, there is no merit in this writ petition. It is, hereby, dismissed. (R.S.CHAUHAN)J. Manoj Solanki