JUDGMENT 1. - This civil revision petition has been filed by the petitioner-defendant against the order dated 29.3.2004 passed by the learned Distt. Judge, Sri Ganganagar by which preliminary issue No. 2-A was decided in favour of plaintiff-respondent inter alia holding that the Distt. Court had jurisdiction to decide the matter and not the Debt Relief Court under the provisions of Rajasthan Relief of Agricultural Indebtedness Act, 1957 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act of 1957'). 2. It arises in the following circumstances: (i) That the plaintiff-respondent filed a suit for recovery of Rs.1.20,000/- alongwith interest total amounting to Rs.1,43.580/- as refund of earnest money inter alia stating that the petitioner-defendant entered into an agreement to sell on 27.4.2002 with the plaintiff-respondent by which he agreed to sell his agricultural land and he received to Rs.1,20,000/- as earnest money from the plaintiff-respondent and the total consideration of sale price was Rs.3,00,000/-. In the plaint, the plaintiff-respondent further pleaded that due to some reasons. he did not want decree for specific performance, but he demanded refund of his earnest money as stated above which was paid by him to the defendant-petitioner. (ii) Reply was filed by the petitioner-defendant and one of the grounds taken by the defendant-petitioner was that since he was agriculturist, therefore, present suit was not maintainable in the Civil Court and only Debt Relief Court could hear the matter. (iii) On the basis of pleadings of the parties issue No. 2-A was framed which runs as under: "Whether the present suit of the plaintiff-respondent is not maintainable in the Civil Court because the petitioner-defendant is an agriculturist and same is maintainable in the Debt Relief Court. (iv) The learned trial Court through order dated 29.3.2004 decided issrie No. 2-A in favour of the plaintiff-respondent inter alia holding that earnest money which was paid by the plaintiff-respondent to the defendant-petitioner when the agreement to sell was executed did not come within the purview of definition of 'debt' as defined in 30 Section 2(c) of the Act of 1957 and therefore, the suit of the plaintiff-respondent against the defendant-petitioner was found maintainable. (v) Aggrieved from the order dated 29.3.2004, this revision petition has been preferred by the petitioner-defendant. 3. (v) Aggrieved from the order dated 29.3.2004, this revision petition has been preferred by the petitioner-defendant. 3. The main case of the learned counsel for the defendant-petitioner is that the definition of 'debt' as defined in Section 2(c) of the Act of 1957 includes the refund of earnest money and therefore, the findings on issue No. 2-A recorded by the learned Distt. Judge. Sri Ganganagar are erroneous and Should be set aside. 4. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the plaintiff-respondent has supported the findings recovered in the order dated 29.3.2004 and has submitted that since they are based on proper appreciation of facts and law, therefore, they do not require any interference by this Court and this revision petition deserves to be dismissed. 5. Heard and perused the case file. 6. The word 'debt' as defined in Section 2(c) of the Act of 1957 includes all liabilities owing to a creditor, in cash or kind secured or unsecured, payable under a decree or order of a civil Court or otherwise, whether due or not cue, but shall not include land revenue or anything recoverable as land so revenue other than liabilities payable under a decree of a village panchayat or any money for the recovery of which a suit is barred by limitation. 7. From the definition of 'debt' as embodied in Section 2(c) of the Act of 1957, I find that it is not enumerative or exhaustive definition, but an inclusive as well as exclusive definition in which main term 'debt' has not been given any meaning but 'all liabilities owing' have been added by use of the word 5 includes'. This is the first part (I) of this definition. In Second part (II), it says but shall not include' which means 'excluded'. Thus, certain liabilities enumerated form (a) to (c) have been excluded from the purview of word 'debt'. 8. It may further be stated that actual word 'debt' has not been defined to under the Act of 1957 and therefore, it has to be looked into for various meanings assigned in various Acts and interpreted by the Courts etc. 9. In my considered opinion, agreement for sale is not contract of the nature suggested by provisions of Act of 1957. 9. In my considered opinion, agreement for sale is not contract of the nature suggested by provisions of Act of 1957. If seller takes money in advance pursuant to agreement for sale, it cannot be said that vendor (seller) 15 is indebted to the purchaser (vendee) in any amount. Hence, the price received as earnest money on the basis of execution of agreement for sale cannot be treated to be debt for the purpose of Section 2(c) of the Act of 1957. 10. Apart from this, the word 'debt' is synonymous to 'loan' i.e. advance of money or money's worth at interest having relationship of creditor and 20 debtor and thus, for the purpose of debt, there must be relationship of creditor and debtor and if relationship of present defendant-petitioner and respondent-plaintiff is seen, by receiving earnest money from the plaintiff by the defendant on the basis of execution of agreement for sale, relationship of creditor and debtor is not established and from this point of view also, 25 earnest money cannot be equated with the word 'debt'. 11. Thus, if there is an agreement to sell and for example same is followed by delivery of possession, in my considered opinion, the price received against such delivery cannot be termed as debt and similarly on the same reasoning amount received either in advance or later as earnest money under agreement to sell cannot be regarded as a debt charged or simple and from this point of view also the basis of which suit was filed by the plaintiff-respondent cannot come within the purview of 'debt' as defined in Section 2(c) of the Act of 1957. 12. When this being the position of law, the findings given by the learned Distt. Judge on issue No. 2-A by which the suit was found maintainable cannot be said to be perverse or erroneous one. 13. 12. When this being the position of law, the findings given by the learned Distt. Judge on issue No. 2-A by which the suit was found maintainable cannot be said to be perverse or erroneous one. 13. Not only this, this Court in the case of Smt. Aijee Bai v. Gopi Lal & Ors., reported in 1995(2) DNJ (Raj.) 447 has taken the same view by holding that amount advanced as earnest money does not fall within the purview of 'Debt' as defined in Section 2(c) of the Act of 1957 and when there is law laid down by this Court on the point in issue, the same should be followed in subsequent decisions and from this point of view also the finding given by the learned trial Court in deciding issue No. 2-A cannot be said to be perverse or erroneous one. 14. For the reasons, mentioned above, the impugned order dated 29.3.2004 does not suffer from basic infirmity of illegality and the same does not require any interference by this Court and this revision petition deserves to be dismissed.Accordingly, the present revision petition is dismissed.Revision Dismissed-Order of District Judge Sustained. *******