1 70 S.B. CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.8383/2007. Satpal Vs. M/s Ramrakh Mal Sudarshan Kumar & Ors. Date of Order :: 15th April 2009. HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DINESH MAHESHWARI Mr. H.R. Chawla,for the petitioner. .... BY THE COURT Having heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and having perused the material placed on record, this Court is unable to find any jurisdictional error leading to gross failure of justice so as to consider interference in the writ jurisdiction in the order passed by the Revisional Court on 01.08.2007 affirming the order passed by the Debt Relief Court on 28.04.2006. Against the claim as made by the respondent-creditor the defence of the petitioner had essentially been of denial of his being in alleged debts. The petitioner also alleged that there had been certain brokerage transaction of the respondent firm with his brother Chetram; and that he did sign certain accounts entries in settlement of the account of his brother. While deciding all the relevant issues relating to the 2 facts, the Debt Relief Court has found it justified to rely on the entries made in the account books of the creditor and held that the petitioner was in debt in the sum of Rs.1,56,000/-. The Debt Relief Court has allowed simple interest @ 9% per annum and extended the petitioner the facility of making the payment in 8 yearly installments, first 7 of them at Rs.25,000/- each. The submission on behalf of the petitioner before the Revisional Court had essentially been about the non- compliance of the requirements of Sections 7,8,10 & 11 of the Rajasthan Relief of Agricultural Indebtedness Act, 1957 ('the Act') and that mere account books were not sufficient for mulcting liability on the debtor. The Court concerned has found that the fact of dues against the petitioner was amply established with the oral and documentary evidence adduced by the creditor; and the witnesses have duly proved the books of account kept in the regular course of business. The Revisional Court has also found the creditor having carried out the requirements of the Section 7,8,10 & 11 of the Act. Looking to the findings as recorded by the subordinate Courts, there appears no reason to consider any interference in the writ jurisdiction. During the course of submissions, the learned counsel 3 for the petitioner was also posed the question if the petitioner has at all made any payment towards the impugned order as there had been no interim order in this matter to which the learned counsel answered in negative. Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, there does not appear any reason to consider any modification in any part of the order made by the learned subordinate Courts. The writ petition stands rejected. (DINESH MAHESHWARI), J. s.soni