1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR -------------------------------------------------------- SPL. APPL. WRIT No. 981 of 2008 LAL CHAND V/S DEBT RELIEF COURT, RAISGNR & ANR Mr. HEMANT JAIN, for the appellant / petitioner Date of Order : 4.11.2008 HON'BLE SHRI N P GUPTA,J. HON'BLE SHRI KISHAN SWAROOP CHAUDHARI,J. ORDER ----- Heard learned counsel for the petitioner- appellant. Perused the impugned orders of the Debt Relief Court, Revisional Court and the learned Single Judge. It was sought to be contended, that the private respondent had filed an application with the plea of cash advancement of loan, while in evidence, it was admitted, that on that day, only Rs.2000/- were paid per advance, and on that basis, referring to section 10, it was sought to be contended, that since the amount claimed included, element of interest, without looking to the past books of the accounts, the claim could not be decreed. It would suffice to say, that in the revision, filed before the learned revisional court itself, the contention raised was, that the amount represented 2 outstandings of “Adhat and Dalali”, and was not contended to be including any element of interest. Thus, this contention cannot be accepted. Next contention raised was, that in fixing installments, while deciding issue No.6, the learned trial court has not complied with the requirement of Rules 8 and 9 of the Rules in the matter of determination of market value of the property, and paying capacity of the present appellant. In this regard also, it may be observed, that during trial, no material was sought to be, or attempted to be placed on record, whether in the evidence of the appellant himself, or from the evidence of the applicant. Attention of the learned trial court also does not appear to have been invited on various aspects, which are now sought to be urged for the first time before us. The learned counsel read before us the memo of revision, wherein also, the very vague ground has been taken, that in deciding issue No.6, the provisions of Rules have not been complied with. In our view, the requirement was the requirement of fact. The appellant never joined issue on this aspect, as to what is the market value of this property and what is his paying capacity. So much so that even before the revisional court, no factual data were sought to be projected. The valuation of the property and 3 details of the property, as given in the application are also not sought to have been controverted. Thus, we are not inclined to accept this ground. The appeal has no force and the same is, therefore, dismissed. ( KISHAN SWAROOP CHAUDHARI ),J. ( N P GUPTA ),J. /m.asif/