CW – 16/06 - LRs of Pola Singh Vs. Firm Brar Trading Co. & Ors. : Order dt.1.4.08 1/4 S.B. CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.16/2006 LRs of Pola Singh Vs. Firm Brar Trading Company & Ors. Date of order : 01st April, 2008 PRESENT HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE VINEET KOTHARI Mr. G.R. Goyal for the petitioners. Mr. G.J. Gupta for the respondents. --------- 1. Heard leaned counsels. 2. This writ petition has been filed against the order dated 10.3.2004 passed by the Debt Relief Court [Civil Judge (Senior Division), Sri Ganganagar in DRC Application No.18/1996 determining the debt of the defendant, the present petitioner to the extent of Rs.62,500/- along with interest of Rs.8,906/- total Rs.71,406/- and directing the defendants to pay the same within the stipulated time frame. The revision filed by the petitioner against the said order dated 10.3.2004 came to be rejected by the learned ADJ No.2, Sri Ganganagar on 7.3.2005. 3. Being aggrieved of the said orders, the petitioners have approached this Court by way of the present writ petition. CW – 16/06 - LRs of Pola Singh Vs. Firm Brar Trading Co. & Ors. : Order dt.1.4.08 2/4 4. The learned counsel for the petitioners Mr. G.R. Goyal relied on the provisions of Section 8 of the Rajasthan Agricultural Indebtedness Relief Act, 1957 (hereinafter referred to as “the Act”). Relying on the said Act, the leaned counsel for the petitioner submits that since the applicant, the present respondent did not furnish all the account books including cash book, ledger etc. before the Court below, there was a non-compliance of Section 8 (2) of the said Act and, therefore, the Court should have discharged the said debt and rejected the application of the respondent. He submitted that there are certain documents in the possession of the present petitioner, which establish previous transactions of the respondent-firm and which will establish that the applicants present respondents did not comply with the mandatory provisions of Section 8(2) of the Act. These submissions are opposed by Mr. G.J. Gupta, learned counsel for the respondents. 5. Having heard learned counsels, this Court is of the view that this issue cannot be raised by the learned counsel for the petitioners at this belated stage. If any such document establishing previous transactions with the respondent applicant was in possession CW – 16/06 - LRs of Pola Singh Vs. Firm Brar Trading Co. & Ors. : Order dt.1.4.08 3/4 of the petitioner, the same ought to have been produced either before the Courts below or at least along with this writ petition, when the same was filed in the Court way back in the year 2005. Such documents cannot be allowed to be produced as an after thought at this belated stage before this Court. The contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner that only cash book was produced before the Court below and not the ledger account and other accounts and, thus, there was non-compliance of the mandatory provisions of Section 8(2) of the said Act, is also devoid of any merit. The cash book, maintained in the ordinary course of business and day-to-day basis, is also a part of the account books and can be produced in evidence under the provisions of the Section 8(2) of the Act. The said provision requires the creditor to produce 'the documents in his possession or control on which he bases his claim'. He shall also furnish a full and true statement of accounts of all previous transactions between him and his debtor leading to the claim and his account books or copies thereof, if any, in his possession or control. The said provision does not specify which account books in particular have to be produced. Since cash book is also part of the account which the respondent-applicant admittedly did produce in evidence before the Court below, it cannot be said that in the absence of CW – 16/06 - LRs of Pola Singh Vs. Firm Brar Trading Co. & Ors. : Order dt.1.4.08 4/4 production of ledger account, claim of the respondent ought to have been rejected. This contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is, therefore, devoid of any force. Consequently this Court finds no force in the writ petition. 6. The writ petition is accordingly dismissed. No costs. [ DR. VINEET KOTHARI ], J. item No.16 babulal/-