SWAMI, J. ( 1 ) THIS Revision Petition is preferred against the order dated 17-1- 1987 passed by the learned Munsiff, Haveri, in O. S. No. 29 of 1980 holding that Issues 5 and 6 do not arise for consideration as the same have become redundant and further ordering that the same should be deleted. ( 2 ) ISSUES 5 and 6 are as follows: "5. Does the defendant No. 1 prove that he is a debtor under the Karnataka debt Relief Act ? 6. Whether the defendant No. 1 is entitled for the benefit under the Karnataka debt Relief Act ?" ( 3 ) ON an earlier occasion, by the order dated 8-11-1983, the trial Court held that defendant-1 was not a debtor under the Karnataka debt Relief Act. That order was challenged before this Court in C. R. P. No. 525 of 1984 which was allowed on 5-8-1986 in the following terms:"therefore, under these circumstances, the findings recorded by the court below on Issues 5 and 6 are set aside. The revision is allowed. The matter is sent back to the Court below for fresh consideration in the light of the observations made above and in the light of the provisions of the K. D. R. Act. The court below should give opportunity to both the parties to lead evidence, if they choose to do so". The grievance made on behalf of the petitioner is that even though he wanted to adduce evidence, the Trial Court did not give him an opportunity to adduce evidence and it decided the matter straight away on receipt of the records from this Court. ( 4 ) THE trial Court has held that the suit claim does not amount to a debt as defined under the KARNATAKA Debt Relief Act, 1980 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) and therefore, Issues 5 and 6 do not arise for consideration. It has accordingly directed them to be deleted. ( 5 ) IT appears to me that the Trial Court has misread the plaint. The plaint averments are to the effect that the plaintiff is a registered partnership firm doing commission agency business purchasing and selling cotton, groundnut, chilli, jowar and other agricultural produce. The defendants are members of a Joint Hindu Family and defendant No. 1 is a Kartha of the family. The plaint averments are to the effect that the plaintiff is a registered partnership firm doing commission agency business purchasing and selling cotton, groundnut, chilli, jowar and other agricultural produce. The defendants are members of a Joint Hindu Family and defendant No. 1 is a Kartha of the family. That as a Kartha of the family, the 1st defendant opened a Khatha in the shop of the plaintiff and obtained money from the plaintiffs shop as and when required, that the defendants used to sell the agricultural produce through the plaintiffs shop and discharge the amount obtained by them; that ultimately when the balance was strucked, the suit amount was found due. Therefore, the plaintiff has filed the suit for recovery of the amount due under the khatha. ( 6 ) THE learned Trial Judge has held that the suit claim falls under clause (k) of Sec. 10 of the Act. Therefore, the provisions of the act, do not apply to the suit claim. Consequently, it has held that Issues 5 and 6 do not arise. Accordingly, issues 5 and 6 are ordered to be deleted. Clause (k) of Section 10 of the Act reads thus:"sec. 10: Nothing in this Act shall apply to the following categories of debts and liabilities of a debtor, namely :- clause (k) of Sec. 10: any amount received by a debtor as advance for the delivery of goods at a future date ;"it is not possible to hold that the suit claim falls under clause (k) of Section 10 of the Act. The suit claim represents the amount due under the Khatha maintained by the 1st defendant as a Kartha of the family in the plaintiffs shop. The amount was advanced by the plaintiff to the 1st defendant as and when it was required by him. The amount was not advanced by the plaintiff to the 1st-defendant as advance towards the value of the goods agreed to be sold by the defendants to the plaintiff and the delivery of which has to take place at a future date. The fact that the defendants used to sell their agricultural produce and adjust the value there of towards the amount obtained by them from the plaintiffs shop is not sufficient to bring the claim under clause (k) of section 10 of the Act, so as to exempt it from the purview of the Act. The fact that the defendants used to sell their agricultural produce and adjust the value there of towards the amount obtained by them from the plaintiffs shop is not sufficient to bring the claim under clause (k) of section 10 of the Act, so as to exempt it from the purview of the Act. Clause (k) of Section 10 of the Act covers such debts and liabilities which arise out of the amount advanced to a debtor pursuant to an agreement to sell the goods, the delivery of which, has to take place at a future date. Therefore, it is apparent that there must have been an agreement between a person, who advanced the amount and the person who received it for sale of goods on an agreed rate, the delivery of which has to take place at a future date. No such agreement is pleaded either by the plaintiff or by the defendants. The suit claim arises out of normal transactions that take place between a creditor and a debtor. Normally, a commission agent, who purchases and sells agricultural produce, advances amounts on interest according to trade usage and custom or on agreed rates to agriculturist, who approach him. They, in turn, sell their agricultural produce through that commi ssion agent and the value of the commodity is adjusted towards the amount advanced by the commission agent. It is not necessary for an agriculturist to sell his agricultural produce only through such commission agent, from whom, he has borrowed money. In such an event, the commission agent will be entitled to recover the amount amicably or through the process known to law. Therefore, the transaction between the two is that of a creditor and a debtor not that of a seller and a purchaser of goods. Hence, the suit claim does not fall under clause (K) of Section 10 of the Act, therefore, it is not exempted from the purview of the Act. The trial Court is not right in holding that the suit claim is exempted from the purview of the Act under clause (k) of Section 10 of the act. ( 7 ) HOWEVER, Sris. V. Patin, learned Counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance on a decision of this Court in SOGANALL peeraji OSWAL and ANOTHER v hirabai (C. R. P. 1984 (2) K. L. J.)Short notes 5 Item No. 8. 3045/78, dt: 3. 7. 1984. ( 7 ) HOWEVER, Sris. V. Patin, learned Counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance on a decision of this Court in SOGANALL peeraji OSWAL and ANOTHER v hirabai (C. R. P. 1984 (2) K. L. J.)Short notes 5 Item No. 8. 3045/78, dt: 3. 7. 1984. That was a case in which the Decree- holder gave an advance to the Judgment-debtor while entering into an agreement to sell towards part performance of the agreement. Therefore, it was held that the decree that was passed for refund of the advance amount was not a debt within the meaning of Section 3 (b) read with Sections 4 and 8 of the Karnataka debt Relief Act, 1976. Thus, it is clear that the decision is not on the point. As already pointed out in the instant case, the amount was not advanced pursuant to an agreement of sale of goods. The amount was advanced as a loan and was obtained as a loan by the defendants to meet their normal necessities and also for their agricultural purposes. ( 8 ) FOR the reasons stated above, the Civil revision Petition is allowed. The order dated 17-1-1987, passed by the Munsiff, haveri, in O. S. No. 29 of 1980 is set aside. The Trial Court is directed to decide Issues 5 and 6 afresh in the light of this order and after affording an opportunity to the parties to adduce further evidence if they desire to do so. As the suit is of the year 1980, the trial Court is directed to dispose of the same within six months from the date of receipt of this order. Revision petition allowed. --- *** --- .