- (1.) THE petitioner -defendant has challenged the judgment and decree dated 27.5.2010 passed by the Judge, Debt Relief Court [Civil Judge (Sr. Div.) No.1], Srimadhopur whereby the learned Magistrate had decreed the suit in favour of the plaintiff -respondent No.3, Gajanand. The petitioner -defendant is also aggrieved by the judgment dated 19.4.2012 passed by the Additional District & Sessions Judge No.2, Sikar Headquarter, Srimadhopur whereby the learned Judge has partly allowed the revision filed by the petitioner, but has partly confirmed the judgment and decree dated 27.5.2010.
(2.) THE brief facts of the case are that the plaintiff - respondent No.3, Gajanand, had filed an application under Section 6 of the Rajasthan Agricultural Debt Relief Act, 1957 before the learned Magistrate, inter alia, on the ground that the petitioner took a loan of Rs.75,000/ - on 17.12.1997 at the interest of Rs.2/ - per hundred per month. In this regard, an agreement was signed between him and the petitioner with the help of one Ramgopal. The plaintiff -respondent also claimed that he had sent a notice for recovery of Rs.75,000/ - to the petitioner. In the notice it was clearly indicated that the petitioner owes the respondent -plaintiff Rs.75,000/ - as the principal amount, and Rs.52,000/ - towards interest till 16.12.2000. Thus, the petitioner owes the respondent -plaintiff a total of Rs.1,27,000/ -. Despite service of notice upon the petitioner, the petitioner did not repay the said loan amount. Hence, the suit filed against the petitioner. While submitting his reply to the application, the petitioner claimed that his son, Shankar, was an employee of the plaintiff. Since the plaintiff did not pay his son his rightful salary, a dispute arose between the two. Therefore, in order to wreck vengeance upon the petitioner, the respondent -plaintiff and Ramgopal entered into a conspiracy and forged the agreement. He further claimed that since he is the owner of 2.5 Bighas of land, since the land is the only source of his livelihood being a small farmer, an application under Section 6 is not even maintainable against him.
(3.) ON the basis of pleadings of the parties, the learned trial court framed five issues including the issue of relief. In order to support his case, the respondent -plaintiff examined two witnesses and submitted five documents. In order to buttress his case, the petitioner examined two witnesses. After going through the oral as well as the documentary evidence, by judgment dated 27.5.2010 the learned trial court decreed the suit in favour of the respondent -plaintiff. Since the petitioner was aggrieved by the said decree, he filed a revision petition under Section 17 of the Act before the learned Judge. However, by judgment dated 19.4.2012 while the learned Judge has reduced the period of interest, the learned Judge has upheld the judgment and decree dated 27.5.2010. Hence, this petition before this court.;