1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR O R D E R Shankar Lal Vs. The District Judge, Pratapgarh S.B.Civil Writ Petition No. 8280/2007 ......... Date of Order : 02/09/2008 P R E S E N T HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE H.R.PANWAR Mr. Narpat Singh for the petitioner. BY THE COURT By the instant writ petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner has challenged the orders Annex.4 and 5 dated 29.08.2005 and 10.05.2006 respectively passed in DRC Case No. 15/99 and in Revision No. 08/2006. I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner. Carefully gone through the order passed by the Debt Relief Court as also the Revisional Court i.e. District Judge, Pratapgarh. It is contended by learned counsel for the petitioner that the respondent No.2 filed an application under Section 6 of the Rajasthan Agriculture Debt Relief Act, 1957 (for short 'the 2 Act of 1957' hereinafter) before the trial court which came to be decreed by judgment and decree dated 29.08.2005, against which the petitioner preferred a revision before the respondent NO.1 District Judge, Pratapgarh. However, the revision came to be dismissed by the revisional court. Hence this petition. It is contended by learned counsel for the petitioner that in a petition filed by the respondent under Section 6 of the Act of 1957, the petitioner filed a reply and took a stand that he has sold 10 Qtls. and 50 kg. Mustard at the rate of Rs. 1050 per Qtl. in the Samwat Year 2054 and the respondent has taken the mustard in the presence of Nathu Dangi and Lala Rawat. According to learned counsel for the petitioner this fact has not been rebutted by way of rejoinder to the reply filed by the petitioner and therefore, must be construed to have been admitted by the respondent. Both the courts below noticed that an issue to this pleading has been framed and the burden to prove this issue was on the petitioner. The petitioner failed to discharge the burden and prove the issue. The petitioner came with a case that the mustard was taken by the respondent in the presence of Nathu Dangi and Lala Rawat. The petitioner failed to produce any of these two witnesses in whose presence it is alleged that the respondent has taken 10 Qtls and 50 kg mustard and therefore, both the courts below held that the petitioner has failed to prove the issue No.3 and decided the 3 issue against the petitioner. So far as the issues No.1,2 and 4 are concerned, these issues have been decided against the petitioner since the petitioner did not dispute these issues. The issue No.1 is to the effect that that the petitioner took a loan of Rs. 7500/- from the respondent in Samwat Year 2054 Vaishakh Sudi Ashthami on 14.05.1997 with 2% interest per month and has not paid the same to the respondents. Finding on this issue has been recorded against the petitioner and this finding has not been challenged before the revisional court. Thus, the respondent has established that he has advanced a loan of Rs. 7500/- to the petitioner in the Samwat Year 2054 Vaishakh Sudi Ashthami on 14.05.1997 at 2% interest per month and which the petitioner has not re-paid. In view of this finding, the revisional court did not find any error in the order of the trial court. In my view, both the courts below concurrently recorded the finding of fact and no case warranting interference by invoking the extra-ordinary jurisdiction is made out more particular in view of the finding on issue No.1. The writ petition is therefore, dismissed. Stay petition also stands dismissed. (H.R.PANWAR), J. rp