Honble YADAV, J.— The present Miscellaneous Appeal has been preferred against the Judgment and decree dated 31.9.1995 passed by the learned Civil Judge (Senior Division), Jaitaran whereby he set aside the judgment and decree dated 26.2.1985 of learned Munsif and Judicial Magistrate, Jaitaran and directed to return the plaint for presentation before the Debt Relief Court established under the Rajasthan Relief of Agricultural Indebtedness Act, 1957 (hereinafter referred to as Act No. 28 of 1957). (2). Brief facts necessary for disposal of the present appeal are that the plaintiff-appellant filed a civil suit against the defendant-respondent in the court of learned Munsif and Judicial Magistrate, Jaitaran on 20.12.1973 for recovery of Rs. 5,000/- on the basis of so-called Pronote and receipt alleged to have been executed by the defendant-respondent in his favour. (3). The defendant-respondent filed a written statement on 10.5.74 denying the so-called execution of pronote and receipt. It is further denied by the defendant-respondent that he received Rs. 4,000/- as principal amount, upon which Rs. 1000/- accrued as interest. According to the written statement, the forged pronote and receipt in question have been manipulated by Nath Mal and Inder Chand plaintiff-appellant who are closely related with the collusion of Mangilal who belongs to their group. (4). On the basis of the pleadings of the parlies, necessary issues were framed by the learned trial court. Thereafter, the defendant-respondent moved an application for amending his written statement to the effect that the plaintiff-appellant is money lender and as he has not complied with the provisions of Sec.22 and 23 of the Rajasthan Money-Lenders Act, 1963 (hereinafter referred to as Act No.l of 1964), therefore, the present suit is not maintainable by the Civil Court within the meaning of Sec. 47 of the said Act. Amendment in the written statement was allowed by the learned trial Court on 8.9.77 and two additional issues No. 5 and 6 were framed about the effect of non-compliance of Sec. 22 and 23 of Act No. 1 of 1964 as well as about the jurisdiction of the Civil Court. (5). After framing of issues, both the parties were allowed to adduce evidence in support of their pleadings. Learned trial court decided all the issues in favour of the plaintiff-appellant and decreed the suit. (6). (5). After framing of issues, both the parties were allowed to adduce evidence in support of their pleadings. Learned trial court decided all the issues in favour of the plaintiff-appellant and decreed the suit. (6). Aggrieved against the aforesaid judgment and decree, the defendant-respondent filed an appeal before the learned District Judge, Pali who transferred the same to the learned Civil Judge (Senior Division), Jaitaran for disposal in accordance with law. (7). Learned lower appellate court vide its impugned judgment, set aside the judgment and decree passed by the learned trial court and allowed the appeal with a direction to return the plaint for presentation before the Debt Relief Court. (8). Aggrieved against the judgment and direction to return the plaint for presentation before the Debt Belief Court, the present Misc. Appeal has been preferred before this Court. (9). On 11.8.1995, notice to show cause was issued by this court to the defendant-respondent as to why the instant appeal be not finally disposed of at admission stage. After service of notice, the defendant-respondent is represented by his learned counsel Mr. R.K. Charan. With the consent of learned counsel for the parties, the present Misc. Appeal is hereby finally disposed of on merit at admission stage looking into the long pendency of the suit. (10). I have heard learned counsel for the appellant Mr. G.L. Khatri and learned counsel Mr. R.K. Charan appearing on behalf of the defendant-respondent. (11). It is contended by learned counsel for the appellant Mr. G.L. Khatri before me that since both the courts-below have arrived at a concurrent finding of fact that the plaintiff- appellant is not a money-lender within the meaning of Sec. 2(10) of Act No. 1 of 1964, therefore, the suit is not barred under Sec. 47 of the said Act. Thus, according to him, learned lower appellate court has no jurisdiction to direct return of plaint for presentation before the Debt Relief Court. (12). For deeper understanding and also for proper appreciation of the aforesaid question raised by the learned counsel for the plaintiff-appellant, it would be necessary to keep in view that under Sec. 9 of the Civil Procedure Code, all civil courts have jurisdiction to try all suits of a civil nature excepting suits of which their cognizance is either expressly or impliedly barred. It is to be remembered that consent of the parties cannot be permitted either to confer or oust the jurisdiction of the civil courts to try and adjudicate all suits of a civil nature unless its jurisdiction is expressly or impliedly barred by an enactment of Parliament of State Legislature subject to the mandatory provisions enshrined under Art. 254 of the Consti-tution of India, inasmuch as, the Civil Procedure Code is placed under Concurrent List at Item No. 13 of Seventh Schedule of the Constitution. (13). It is true that if jurisdiction of the civil court is expressly barred by some special enactment either passed by Parliament or State Legislature, there could be no difficulty but the difficulty may arise where jurisdiction of the civil court is barred by necessary implication. In latter case, the courts of law are required to evolve some definable objective tests where jurisdiction of the civil court can said to be barred impliedly with certainty in law. In my humble opinion, while deciding as to whether jurisdiction of a civil court is impliedly barred it is to be examined as to whether the right or rights created either by the Parliament or State Legislature, also provides a machinery for enforcement of such right or rights. In my considered opinion, whenever and wherever it is found that a statutory enactment has created a statutory right or rights and also intended to provide a complete machinery for enforcement of such rights then in such a situation, even in absence of exclusionary provision in an enactment, the jurisdiction of a civil court be deemed to be barred by necessary implication. (14). With the aforesaid introspection, this Court is called upon to decide as to whether jurisdiction of the civil court in the present case is barred and direction of the learned lower appellate court to return the plaint for presentation before the Debt Relief Court is sustainable. (15). Indisputably, Act No. 28 of 1957 as well as Act No. 1 of 1964 have been enacted by the State Legislature creating rights to Agriculturists of the State to grant them relief from unscrupulous money-lenders as observed by the Apex Court in the case of Gamini Krishnayya and others VS. Guraza Seshchalam and others (1). (15). Indisputably, Act No. 28 of 1957 as well as Act No. 1 of 1964 have been enacted by the State Legislature creating rights to Agriculturists of the State to grant them relief from unscrupulous money-lenders as observed by the Apex Court in the case of Gamini Krishnayya and others VS. Guraza Seshchalam and others (1). It is also ruled by the Supreme Court in the afore-mentioned decision that any beneficial measure of this kind should be interpreted in such a manner as to carry out the main object which the Legislature had in view. (16). After creating rights in favour of the Agriculturists of the State under above mentioned enactments the State Legislature has not stopped there but has provided a complete machinery to enforce such rights by establishing Debt Relief Courts under Sec. 3 of Act No. 28 of 1957. Learned lower appellate court has categorically recorded a finding that the defendant-respondent is an Agriculturist, therefore, the aforesaid Act is applicable to him. Once it is held that the defendant-respondent is an Agriculturist and two conditions enumerated in the preceding paragraphs i.e. creation of rights and complete machinery to enforce such rights are satisfied by Act No. 28 of 1957 the jurisdiction of the civil court shall be deemed to be barred by necessary implication even in absence of any specific exclusionary provisions in the aforesaid Act and an argument contrary to it is not acceptable. (17). There is yet another reason to sustain the impugned judgment of the learned lower appellate court and its direction to return the plaint for presentation before the Debt Relief Court. Section 47 of Act No. 1 of 1964 clearly bars any suit or proceeding relating to any loan in respect of which proceedings can be taken under Act No. 28 of 1957. Indisputably, the alleged pronote and receipt in the present case is alleged to have been executed on 13.8.1971 and the suit was filed before the civil court on 20.12.1973 much after enforcement of Act No. 28 of 1957 and Act No. 1 of 1964. PW-1 Nath Mal one of the witness of the plaintiff-appellant has stated on oath during the course of cross-examination that the defendant-respondent is an Agriculturist. (18). PW-1 Nath Mal one of the witness of the plaintiff-appellant has stated on oath during the course of cross-examination that the defendant-respondent is an Agriculturist. (18). A close scrutiny of Sec. 47 of Act No. 1 of 1964 leads towards an irresistible conclusion that Act No. 28 of 1957 has over-riding effect on the provisions of Act No. 1 of 1964 and no court shall entertain any suit or proceedings relating to any loan in respect of which the proceedings can be taken under the latter enactment i.e. Act No. 28 of 1957. Sub-sec. (l)and sub- sec.(2) of Section 6 of Act No. 28 of 1957 are quoted below for ready reference:— "Sec. 6-Application to Debt Relief Court.- (1) Any debtor, who is liable for debts individually or jointly with another person, may file an application before the Debt Relief Court having jurisdiction in the area in which he ordinarily resides or earns his livelihood praying for the determination of his debts. (2). Such an application, praying for the determination of the debts outstanding against a debtor, may also be filed by his Creditor or his surety, whether such debtor is liable for such debts individually or jointly with another person." (19). In view of the aforesaid provisions contemplated under sub-sec. (1) and (2) of Sec. 6 of Act No. 28 of 1957 1 am not impressed with the argument of the learned counsel for the appellant that it is only debtor who can approach the Debt Relief Court for determination of his debts. His argument to the effect that since the defendant-respondent has denied the execution of pronote and receipt and also denied any outstanding dues against plaintiff-appellant, therefore, the plaint cannot be returned for presentation to the Debt Relief Court. According to him, the plaint can be returned for presentation to Debt Relief Court only if the defendant-respondent admits his liability for debts in toto as alleged by the plaintiff-appellant or in part and there may be a likelihood for determination of his debts under sub-sec. (1) of Sec. 6 of Act No. 28 of 1957. (20). According to him, the plaint can be returned for presentation to Debt Relief Court only if the defendant-respondent admits his liability for debts in toto as alleged by the plaintiff-appellant or in part and there may be a likelihood for determination of his debts under sub-sec. (1) of Sec. 6 of Act No. 28 of 1957. (20). Although the aforesaid arguments are attractive but fallacious and it is not correct to argue that only debtor who is liable for debts individually or jointly with another person, may file an application before the Debt Relief Court praying for determination of his debts under Sub-sec.(l) of Sec. 6 of Act No. 28 of 1957. Such application praying for determination of debts outstanding against the debtor can also be filed by a creditor or his surety for recovery of his debts as contemplated under sub- sec. (2) of Sec. 6 of the Act No. 28 of 1957. Similar question came up for consideration before the learned Single Judge of this Court in the case of Hem Raj VS. Heera Lal (2), where the learned Single Judge directed return of plaint for presentation before the Debt Relied Court. I respectfully concur with the view taken by the learned Single Judge in the case of Mem Raj (supra) and arrived at a conclusion that the learned lower appellate court has rightly directed return of plaint for presentation before the Debt Relief Court. The judgment impugned is eminently just and proper and does not require interference by this Court. (21). It is next contended by the learned counsel for the appellant Mr. G.L. Khatri that burden of proof of issue No. 6 to the effect that the defendant-respondent is an Agriculturist and as such the suit is not cognizable by the civil courts under Sec. 47 of Act No. 1 of 1964 was on the defendant-res-pondent who failed to discharge his burden of proof by adducing any cogent and convincing evidence, therefore, the learned lower appellate court has no jurisdiction to direct the return of plaint for presentation before the debt Relief Court on the basis of admission of PW-1 Nath Mal in cross-examination. (22). It is made clear that an admission by PW-1 Nath Mal adduced by the plaintiff-appellant is best evidence that can be relied upon by the defendant-respondent. (22). It is made clear that an admission by PW-1 Nath Mal adduced by the plaintiff-appellant is best evidence that can be relied upon by the defendant-respondent. Admission made by PW-1 Nath Mal is binding on the plaintiff-appellant which is decisive in the present case unless successfully withdrawn or proved erroneous. Indisputably, the aforesaid admission made by PW-1 Nath Mal one of the witness of the plaintiff-appellant, has not been withdrawn nor it is proved erroneous before me. (23). As regards abstract question of burden of proof argued by the learned counsel for the plaintiff-appellant is concerned in the backdrop of the detailed discussion made in the preceding paragraphs it becomes purely academic having no bearing on the merit of case, therefore, it is not tenable. (24). As a result of the aforementioned discussion, the instant Misc. Appeal is dismissed and the impugned judgment passed by the learned lower appellate court on 31.9.95 directing return of plaint for presentation before Debt Relief Court is hereby affirmed. In the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case both the parties are directed to bear their own costs.