1 21 S.B. CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.5313/2006. Mohd. Yakub Khan Vs. Puran & Ors. Date of Order :: 15th January 2009. HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DINESH MAHESHWARI Ms. Deepika Vyas, for the petitioner. BY THE COURT: Having heard learned counsel for the petitioner and having examined the impugned orders dated 17.01.2004 and 04.04.2006, this Court is unable to find any ground to consider interference in the writ jurisdiction. The petitioner made an application before the Debt Relief Court, Makrana (DRC Case No.2/2001) under Section 6 of the Rajasthan Relief of Agricultural Indebtedness Act, 1957 ('the Act of 1957') seeking recovery of an amount of Rs.21,900/- from the respondent No.1 with the submissions that there had been an agreement between the parties whereby the respondent No.1 was to execute the work of excavation of stones on the mines of the petitioner; and that the petitioner made payment of an amount of Rs.51,000/- to the respondent No.1 under the said agreement. The petitioner alleged that the respondent No.1 executed the work only to the tune of Rs.29,100/- but did not complete the remaining work of Rs.21,900/- and hence, sought recovery of the said amount of Rs.21,900/- . The application so moved by the 2 petitioner came to be rejected by the Debt Relief Court essentially on the consideration that the agreement as alleged by the petitioner was not inspiring confidence and even if such an agreement was considered to be existing, the recital therein had been of the petitioner making payment only of an advance amount of Rs. 20,000/-.The Debt Relief Court found that the petitioner had not been able to establish his having advanced a sum Rs. 51,000/- to the respondent No.1; and the account entries as produced before the Court were not reliable being not of the regularly kept books of accounts. The learned District Judge, Merta, while rejecting the revision petition preferred by the petitioner has further observed that even going by the submissions as made by the petitioner, the amount in question had been of advance money towards an agreement and the same could not be considered to be a debt for the purpose of the Act of 1957 with reference to the decision of this Court in Santokh Singh Vs. Harish Lila : 2004 (3) DNJ (Raj.) 1322. In the said case of Santokh Singh, this Court has said that in relation to the money taken in advance by the seller pursuant to an agreement for sale, it cannot be said that the seller is indebted to the purchaser; and the price received as earnest money on the basis of execution of an agreement for sale cannot be treated to be a debt for the purpose of 3 Section 2(c) of the Act of 1957. In extension of the principles aforesaid, this Court is satisfied that looking to the nature of transaction between the parties, the learned Revisional Court cannot be said to have erred in finding incompetent the application as made by the petitioner under the Act of 1957. Apart from the aforesaid, and even if it be assumed for the sake of arguments that such an application was competent before the Debt Relief Court, the fact of the matter remains that the agreement in question itself recites about a sum of Rs. 20,000/- having been paid in advance by the petitioner to the respondent No.1 for execution of the contract work. The petitioner alleged having made payment of a sum of Rs. 51,000/- but such an assertion firstly, stands contrary to and beyond the terms of the alleged agreement dated 11.12.1999 and secondly, has not been proved by cogent evidence. The entries (Annex.3) not bearing any signature/thumb impression of the respondent No.1 could not have been taken to be of reliable evidence towards such alleged payment of Rs.51,000/-; and the subordinate Courts have not committed any error in disbelieving the same. On the aspect about the actual amount advanced, the findings as recorded by the Debt Relief Court are essentially the findings of fact and there appears no reason to consider any interference therein in the writ jurisdiction. 4 The writ petition fails and is, therefore, dismissed. Mohan/ (DINESH MAHESHWARI), J.