D.M.BHANDARI, J. - (1.) THIS is a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution.
(2.) THE case of the petitioners is that they were the creditors of non -petitioner No. 1 Lachhu. On 24th December, 1962, they filed a suit against him in the court of Munsiff City Bali on the basis of a promissory note of Rs. 680/ - which the non -petitioner No. 1 had executed in their favour. On 3rd July 1963, non -petitioner No. 1 filed an application in the Debt Relief Court, Bali, under Section 6 of the Rajasthan Relief of Agricultural Indebtedness Act, 1957 (hereinafter called (he Act), mentioning therein the debt relating to the promissory note only. Notice of this application was issued to the petitioners and they filed their claim of Rs. 1,325/3/3 under the following heads: (i) Rs. 821/ - On the basis of the promissory note including the cost of the suit filed in the court of the Munsiff, Bali.(ii) Rs. 433/8/ - On the basis of Khata executed on Jeth Badi 12 Samvat 2013 for Rs. 808/8/ - fixing instalments for the payment thereof and in which certain payments had already been made.(iii)Rs. 70/11/3 On the basis of Khata beginning from Jeth Sudi 15 Samvat2018 to Poh Sudi 1 Samvat 2019 and signed by non -petitioner No. 1 on Poh Sudi 1 Samvat 2019. The case was adjurned several times for the evidence of the petitioners. On 20th March, 1964, non -petitioner No. 1 filed an application for the rejection of the claim of the petitioners as they have not filed all the accounts of the previous transactions. The Judge, Debt Relief Court, Bali, declared the claims of the petitioners for Rs. 433/8/ - and Rs. 70/11 3 to be discharged for all purposes and all occasions under Section 8(2) of the Act. A revision petition was filed by the petitioners against the aforesaid order in the court of the District Judge, Pali. The learned District Judge dismissed the revision petition. The main contention in this writ petition is that the Debt Relief Court had no jurisdiction to declare both the claims of the petitioners as discharged. In order to appreciate this contention, it is necessary to refer to Sub -section (2) of Section 8 of the Act which reads as follows: 8(2). On the date on which the case is fixed for hearing, every creditor shall produce the documents in his possession or control on which he bases his claim. He shall also furnish a full and true statement of accounts of all previous transactions between him and his debtor leading to the claim and his account books or copies thereof, if any, in his possession or control. If such documents and statements are not produced at such hearing or at any adjourned hearing fixed for the purpose by the Debt Relief Court, the Court may declare such claim to be discharged for all purposes and all occasions against such debtor or debtors. Provided that if the Debt Relief Court is satisfied that any creditor was for good & sufficient cause unable to produce such documents or statements, it may on such conditions as to costs as it may think fit extend the date for the purpose and may revise the claim.
(3.) UNDER the aforesaid provision on the date fixed for hearing of the case a creditor is required to produce the document in his possession or control on which he bases his claim. He has also to furnish a true and full statement of accounts of all previous transactions between him and the debtor leading to the claim and also his account books and copies thereof in his possession or control. The petitioners had produced only the documents on which they based these two claims.;