B.S. Chauhan, J. - (1.) The instant writ petition has been filed against the judgment and order of the Civil Judge cum Chief Judicial Magistrate, Merta dated 18.4.85 (Annexure. 4), and the judgment of the learned District Judge dated 2.12.89 (Annexure. 5), by which the claim of the petitioner under the provisions of the Rajasthan Agricultural Indebtedness Act has been adjudicated upon.
(2.) The facts and circumstances giving rise to this case are that petitioner is an agriculturist, against whom respondent No. 1 filed an application under Section 6 of the Rajasthan Relief of Agricultural Indebtedness Act, 1957 (for short, "The Act") claiming that petitioner had taken a loan of Rs. 30,000/-, on interest at the rate of twelve per cent per annum, on 17.6.81 by executing a Pronote and collateral security and also by executing a receipt. Thus, respondent No 1 filed an application for recovery of Rs. 33,488/- against the petitioner. The said application was contested and some witnesses were also examined. The learned Court, acting under the provisions of the Act, after considering the statement of PW 1 Roopa Ram, PW 2 Hema Ram, PVV 3 Asha Ram, NAW 1 Babu Lal, NAW 2 Bhura Ram and NAW 3 Kalu Ram, vide its judgment and order dated 18.4.85 (Annexure 4), allowed the application of the respondent but directed that the respondent No. 1 shall not be entitled for any interest and petitioner pay the same amount in twelve equal instalments; however, if there is a default in raking payment, the amount shall be recovered with interest at the rate of Rs. 4 per cent. per annum. Being aggrieved and dissatisfied, petitioner as well as respondent No. 1 preferred revision petitions before the learned District Judge and both the revisions have been dismissed vide judgment and order dated 2.12.89 (Annexure 5). Hence this petition.
(3.) The only question involved in this case is : whether the petitioner had taken the loan from respondent No. 1 to the tune of Rs. 30,000/- ? The learned Court under the Act had considered the record and examined the statement of large number of witnesses produced by the parties arid disbelieved the plea taken by the petitioner that the Pronote was a forged and fabricated document, or he was not knowing the persons who had witnessed the Pronote. The trial Court has also recorded the findings of facts that the plea taken by the petitioner was totally false and came to the conclusion that petitioner had taken the said loan. The said findings of facts had been affirmed by the Revisional Court. As the issue involved herein is only a factual dispute, it cannot be agitated and interferred in a limited jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. More so, there is no cogent reason for interfering with it.;