JUDGMENT 1. - By the instant writ petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner seeks to quash the judgment (Annex.1) dated 2.4.2008 passed by Additional District Judge, Sri Karanpur on a revision petition filed by the petitioner against the judgment and decree dated 25.1.2007 (Annex.2) passed by Debt Relief Court, Srikaranpur, district Ganganagar. 2. I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner at length. Carefully gone through the judgment passed by Debt Relief Court dated 25.1.2007 (Annex.2) as also order dated 2.4.2008 (Annex.1) passed by revisional court on a revision filed by the petitioner. It is contended by learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner is not an agriculturist and therefore, the Debt Relief Court has no jurisdiction to entertain the application filed by the respondent No.1 under Section 6 (2) of the Rajasthan Relief of Agricultural Indebtedness Act, 1957 (for short 'the Act of 1957 hereinafter). It is further contended that Sub-section (2) of Section 6 of the Act of 1957 provides that 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. An application can be made by the persons enumerated under Sub-section (3) of Section 6 of the Act of 1957 i.e. an agriculturist or a member of a scheduled caste or a scheduled tribe. Learned counsel for the petitioner has relied on two decisions of this Court in Firm Jani Khushalji Jethaji v. Maharaj Bhopal Singh RLW 1964 page 118 and in Rao Bahadur Moolchad Nemichand v. District Judge, Pratabgarh RLW 1965 page 149. 3-4. It appears from the judgment (Annex.2) passed by Debt Relief Court that there was no such pleading before that Court, accordingly there had not been any such issue "as to whether the petitioner is an agriculturist or not". 3-4. It appears from the judgment (Annex.2) passed by Debt Relief Court that there was no such pleading before that Court, accordingly there had not been any such issue "as to whether the petitioner is an agriculturist or not". The Debt Relief Court framed as many as four issues which reads as under:- "(1) vk;k vizkFkhZ us izkFkhZ ls fnukad 23-6-2001 dks 1]30]000@& :i;s udn crksj dtkZ 1-50 :i;k izfrekg izfr lSdM+k C;kt dh nj ls izkIr djds vizkFkhZ us izkFkhZ ds gd esa izksuksV o jlhn rgjhj o rdehy djds nh\ (2) vk;k izkFkhZ vizkFkhZ ls 1]30]000 :i;s ewy ,oa 68]500 :i;s C;kt dqy 1]98]500 :i;s izkIr djus dk vf/kdkjh gS\ (3) vk;k izksuksV o jlhn QthZ o dwVjfpr gS\ (3,) vk;k nkok fMdzh jlhn QthZ o dwVjfptr gS\ (4) vuqrks"k\ " 5. On a revision, the revisional court vide order (Annex.1) , on re-appreciation of the material placed before the Debt Relief Court and pleadings of the parties and the issues framed therein before that Court, came to the conclusion that the conclusion arrived at by the Debt Relief Court cannot be said to be erroneous and dismissed the revision petition. The contention raised by the counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner is not an agriculturist is for the first time before this Court in a supervisory jurisdiction of this Court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. The question as to whether the petitioner is an agriculturist or not, is a question of fact and has to be decided on evidence.6. In the instant case, before the Debt Relief Court, there was neither pleading nor issue and evidence to this effect and therefore, finding of both the courts below cannot be said to have suffered from any error. The decisions relied on by counsel for the petitioner turn on their own facts and in the facts and circumstances of the present case, do not help to the petitioner.7. Keeping in view the fact that no such plea was taken before the Debt Relief Court and revisional court, in my view, such a new plea cannot be entertained in the writ jurisdiction. The writ petition is therefore, dismissed. No order as to costs. *******