// 1 // IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR ORDER IN S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.1512/2007 Bholya S/o Mahadeva and Others Versus Ganpat Ram S/o Sheo Narain and Others Date of Order ::: 28.07.2008 Present Hon'ble Mr. Justice Narendra Kumar Jain Shri Shyam Bihari, Advocate, for Shri Pankaj Gupta, Counsel for petitioners #### By the Court:- Heard learned counsel for the petitioners. The applicant-respondent No.1 filed an application under Section 6 of the Rajasthan Agriculture Debts Relief Act, 1957 for recovery of Rs.25,000/-, which was given as loan after execution of promissory-note. The trial court allowed the application and passed a decree against the non-applicant for a sum of Rs.25,000/- with interest at the rate of 6% per annum. The trial court directed the non- applicant to pay the decretal amount in installment as per the details given in the order. Being aggrieved with the same, the non- applicant preferred a revision petition before // 2 // the District Judge, who dismissed the same vide order dated 30th August, 2006, hence, being aggrieved with the said order, the present writ petition has been preferred on behalf of the non-applicant. The learned counsel for the petitioners contended that the application was filed on the basis of forged promissory-note and receipt, therefore, the application should have been dismissed. He further contended that the attesting witness Matadeen was not examined in the case and the scribe Banwarilal was also not examined in the case. He, therefore, contended that both the orders passed by both the courts below may be set- aside and the application under Section 6 may be dismissed. I have considered the submissions of learned counsel for the petitioners in the light of reasons assigned by both the courts below. The trial court framed five issues and considered them in the light of evidence in detail and thereafter passed a decree in favour of the applicant-respondent. The revisional court, while considering the scope of revision under Section 17 of the Act, held // 3 // that the execution of promissory-note and receipt is proved from the finding of the trial court and the said finding is a finding of fact, which is not open to be challenged under Section 17 of the Act. The revisional court, therefore, dismissed the revision petition. Whatever arguments, which have been advanced by the learned counsel for the petitioners, are relating to question of facts, which was not interfered with by the revisional court, therefore, no question does arise for this Court to interfere with the said finding of the revisional court. I do not find any legal or factual error in the findings of both the courts below so as to interfere with the same. There is no illegality, perversity or jurisdictional error in both the orders also. Consequently, there is no merit in this writ petition and the same is accordingly dismissed in limine. (Narendra Kumar Jain) J. //Jaiman//