B.J. Shethna, J. - (1.) Heard the learned counsel Shri Gehiot for the petitioner and Shri Mehta for the respondent No. 1. A neat question of law is raised by Shri Gehlot for the petitioner in this petition namely that application Annex. 1 submitted by the respondent No. 1 was itself not maintainable, as it was prayed by the respondent No. 1 himself in the application that the loan amount against the petitioner be annuled. In that view of the matter there was no question of carrying on the same and it is required to be dismissed only on the ground that the application was not made in proper form as required under Section 6 of the Rajasthan Relief of Agricultural Indebtedness Act, 1957.
(2.) Learned counsel Shri Mehta, however, tried to submit that this point was never raised by the petitioners. Mr. Mehta further submits that the contents of the application must be read in its context. This submission cannot be accepted for the simple reason that if the application is not made as required under the provisions of the Act then such application would not be maintainable at all, and no order can be passed by any court on such application the petitioners are poor agriculturist belonging to Scheduled Tribe and the respondent No. 1 is a firm and the amount claimed by the firm is not much for the firm, but for the petitioners it is everything.
(3.) In view of the above, this petition is allowed. The main application Annex. 1 is dismissed. Once the application is dismissed then the subsequent orders passed at Annex. 16 dated 21.11.89, decree dated 23.2.1989 (Annex. 17) and order dated 8.2.94 (Annex. 19) have to be quashed and hereby the same are also quashed. However, there shall be no order as to costs. Writ Petition Dismissed.;