JUDGMENT 1. - This writ petition has been filed by the petitioner challenging the order dated 10.09.1999 passed by the learned District Judge, Dholpur in Civil Revision No. 3/1997, whereby he had allowed the revision petition as also the application filed by the applicant-respondent No. 3, under Section 6 of the Rajasthan Relief of Agricultural indebtedness Act, 1957 (here-in-after referred to as the `Act of 1957') and set-aside the order dated 12.03.1997 passed by the learned Civil Judge (Sr. Dn.) and Debt Relief Court, Dholpur in DRA No. 11/1991. 2. The respondent No. 3, Devi Prasad Mittal had filed an application under Section 6 of the Act of 1957 before the Debt Relief Court cum Civil Judge (SD), Dholpur with the averments that the petitioner is an agriculturist to whom he had advanced a loan of Rs. 15,000/- (Rs. Fifteen thousand only) with the interest @ of Rs. 1.50 paise per month. The respondent No. 3 had opened an account in the `Bahi' (Book of Accounts) and the petitioner had put his signature on it. Further it was averred that the petitioner did not pay the said amount of loan, as per the terms and conditions, and a total amount of Rs. 19,450/- became due against him. Accordingly, it was prayed for determination and recovery of the amount.On having received the notice of the Debt Relief Court, the petitioner filed a detailed reply denying all the averments of the application and he had specifically stated that he neither took any loan nor he had executed any document nor had put any signature or thumb impression on the account book. Further the petitioner had stated in the reply that since, the respondent No. 3 does not have any license under the Money Lending Act, therefore, his application before the Court concerned, was not maintainable. Besides this, the petitioner had also raised other objections before the Court concerned. 3. On the basis of the pleadings of the parties, the learned Debt Relief Court had framed five issues for adjudicating the matter. The relevant issue for the purpose of deciding the present writ petition is issue No. (1) which is as follows- (1) vk;k MSVlZ us dz;MhVj ls fnukad 4-7-88 ls iUnzg gtkj :i;s udn 1-50 iSls egkokj C;kt ij m/kkj fy;s rFkk ,xzghesaV ( [kkrk ) o gd dz;MhVj rgjhj o rdehy djk;k\ 4. The relevant issue for the purpose of deciding the present writ petition is issue No. (1) which is as follows- (1) vk;k MSVlZ us dz;MhVj ls fnukad 4-7-88 ls iUnzg gtkj :i;s udn 1-50 iSls egkokj C;kt ij m/kkj fy;s rFkk ,xzghesaV ( [kkrk ) o gd dz;MhVj rgjhj o rdehy djk;k\ 4. Thereafter, both the parties had adduced their oral and documentary evidence to prove their contentions. On conclusion of the matter, the learned Civii Court had dismissed the application filed under Section 6 of the Act of 1957 primarily on the ground that issue No. 1 had been decided against the applicant/respondent No. 3. 5. Being aggrieved of the said order passed by the learned Debt Relief Court, the respondent No. 3 preferred a revision petition under Section 17 of the Debt Relief Act. The learned revisional Court had decided the revision petition vide impugned order dated 10.9.1999 and while accepting the same, it set-aside the order passed by the Debt Relief Court passed on 12.3.1997. 6. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the learned revisional Court had committed an illegality in reversing the order passed by the Debt Relief Court, as the revisional powers under Section 17 of the Act of 1957 were limited and were only to be exercised when the order passed by the Civil Court was contrary to law. Further he has submitted that the revisional Court had reversed the findings arrived at by the learned Civil Court only on the ground that the signature of the petitioner, in comparison to other material on record, appears to be genuine and that it was for the petitioner to have asked for comparison of the signature through the Hand Writing Expert. Therefore, he has submitted that the learned revisional Court had exceeded its jurisdiction in reversing the findings arrived at by the learned Civil Court, which was based on the evidence on record. Further, it is submitted that the observation of the learned revisional Court that the petitioner should have made a request for comparison of his signature by the hand writing expert after denial of the same is wholly erroneous. In support of his submissions, the learned counsel for the petitioner has relied upon a judgment of Division Bench of this Court, in the case of Banshidhar v. Smt. Sita Bai, 1986 RLW 386 . 7. In support of his submissions, the learned counsel for the petitioner has relied upon a judgment of Division Bench of this Court, in the case of Banshidhar v. Smt. Sita Bai, 1986 RLW 386 . 7. On the other hand, the learned counsel for respondent No. 3 has tried to justify the order passed by the learned revisional Court as well as the findings given by it in respect of issue No. 1. Further he has submitted that respondent No. 3 had made an application before the trial Court for having 1 the signature of the petitioner compared by an expert but the same was rejected. It is an admitted position that after the rejection of the said application,'the order was not challenged before any higher Court. 8. Having considered the submissions made by the learned counsel for the rival parties and on careful perusal of the order impugned passed by the revisional Court, I am of the considered opinion that this writ petition has merit. As noted above, the learned Debt Relief Court had thoroughly considered the matter while deciding the application under Section 6 of the Act of 1957. It was on the basis of the evidence on record that the trial Court had arrived to the findings in respect of issue no. As noted above, the learned Debt Relief Court had thoroughly considered the matter while deciding the application under Section 6 of the Act of 1957. It was on the basis of the evidence on record that the trial Court had arrived to the findings in respect of issue no. 1 and decided the same against the respondent No. 3.It is note worthy that the learned Debt Relief Court had considered in detail the evidence on record while deciding the issue and had come to the following conclusion " vr% bu lHkh rF;ksa o mijksDr foospu ls rFkk ekStwnk izdkj dh ogh /kkjk 34 Hkkjrh; lk{; vf/kfu;e ds vUrxZr dkjckj ds vuqdze esa fu;fer :i ls j[kh xbZ ys[kk iqLrdksa dh izfof"B;ksa dh rkjhQ esa ugha vkrh gSaA vr% ;g [kkrk ogh fu;fer :i ls j[kk tkuk Hkh ugha ekuk tk ldrkA vr% ;g [kkrk bu lHkh rF;ksa o mijksDr foospu dks ns[krs gq, eSa izn'kZ lk{k&1 nsoh izlkn o izkFkhZ lk{kh&2 jktsUnz izlkn dh lk{; dks bl ckcr fo'oluh; ugha ekurk fd nsoh izlkn ls dksbZ iUnzg gtkj :i;s _.kh 'kadj us Ms<+ :i;k lSdM+k izfrekg C;kt ij vk"kk<+ onh iapoh lEor~ 2045 dks m/kkj fy;s gks rks izn'kZ&1 [kkrk ml ckcr _.kh 'kadj us fy[kk gks o , ls ch 'kadj ds gLrk{kj gksA vr% bu rF;ksa dks ns[kus ls esjh jk; esa _.knkrk i{k dh lk{; ls ;g fl) ugha gksrk gS fd fnukad 4-7-88 dks _.knkrk ls _.kh 'kadj us iUnzg gtkj :i;s Ms<+ :i;k izfr lSadM+k izfrekg C;kt ij m/kkj fy;s gksa rFkk izn'kZ&1 [kkrk _.kh us _.knkrk ds i{k esa fy[kk gksA vr% fook|d la0 01 f[kykQ _.knkrk o cgd _.kh fuf.kZr dh tkrh gSaA " A perusal of the impugned order passed by the revisional Court goes to show that the findings of the Civil Court have been reversed in a cursory manner and that too on erroneous basis that the petitioner non-applicant should have made a request for examination of his signature by a hand writing expert. 9. It may also be noted that issue no.2` as to whether the creditor applicant had a license under the Money Lending Act or not and what would be the impact of it, was decided against respondent No. 3. The learned revisional Court had also reversed the same in a summary manner. 9. It may also be noted that issue no.2` as to whether the creditor applicant had a license under the Money Lending Act or not and what would be the impact of it, was decided against respondent No. 3. The learned revisional Court had also reversed the same in a summary manner. The primary ground on which the civil Court had rejected the application of the creditor/applicant was on the basis of the finding arrived at on issue no. 1, relating to taking of loan by the petitioner after putting his signature on the `Bahi' (Book of Account) and the same had been reversed by the revisional Court in the following manner " xSj fuxjkuhdrkZ&_.kh ds gLrk{kjksa dk izn'kZ&1 ij , ls ch ,oa tokc nkok o odkyr ukek ij ekStwn gLrk{kjksa ls lw{e :i ls feyku fd;k x;k gks esjh fouez jk; esa izn'kZ&1 ds gLrk{kj xSj fuxjkuhdrkZ ds Lohd`r gLrk{kj tokc nkok o odkyrukek ls rqyukRed n`f"V ls esy [kkrs gSa ,oa blds vykok izn'kZ 1 dks vihykFkhZ us Lohdkj fd;k gS ftl ij , ls ch vihykFkhZ ds gLrk{kj gSaA izn'kZ&1 dk izekf.kr ugha djokus dk dksbZ ugha gSaA ;fn xSj fuxjkuhdrkZ&_.kh dks bl laca/k esa dksbZ vkifRr gksrh rks og vius gLrk{kjksa dk fo'ks"kK ls tkap djok ldrk Fkk ftlds fy;s mlus izkFkZuk ugha dh gSA vr% izn'kZ&1 dk ,DthD;w'ku ,oa _.kh&xSj fuxjkuhdrkZ dks iUnzg gtkj :i;s ewy/ku Ms< :i;k lSadM+k ekgokj C;kt nj ij fn;k tkuk lansg ls ijs izekf.kr gSA vr% bl fook|d dk fu.kZ; _.knkrk&fuxjkuhdrkZ ds i{k esa fd;k tkrk gSA " 10. The question with regard to powers of the revisional Court, under Section 17 of the Act of 1957, had been thoroughly considered by a Division Bench of this Court in the case of Banshidhar v. Smt. Sita Bai (supra). In that case also where the learned District Court had reversed the order of Civil Court, the learned Division Bench held in Para-5 thus- "A close scrutiny of the order of the District Judge in revision shows that it has been passed on the basis of the re-appreciation of the evidence relating to facts. In that case also where the learned District Court had reversed the order of Civil Court, the learned Division Bench held in Para-5 thus- "A close scrutiny of the order of the District Judge in revision shows that it has been passed on the basis of the re-appreciation of the evidence relating to facts. Section 17 of the Act came up for consideration before the learned Judge of this Court in Nanda v. District Judge, Jaipur , it was held that there is no doubt that the power of revision under Section 17 of the Act is wider than the power exercised by the High Court under Section 115 of the Code of the Civil Procedure but this revisional power is all the same limited by the expression that the findings of the original court are open to review only if the judgment is contrary to law. The expression "contrary to law" was also considered by the learned Judge. It will be pertinent to quote para 11 of the report which is as under-'The expression "Contrary to law" covers an order passed in disregard of the provisions of law applicable to the facts and circumstances of a particular case or when a relevant law applicable to the case has been misinterpreted or applied by the subordinate court. Every erroneous judgment cannot, therefore, fall within the expression "order contrary to law". A Court commits an error of law if it acts contrary to or fails to apply any law or any legal principle. The expression used is "Contrary to law" in clause of Section 17 of the Act and not "Legality, regularity or propriety of the order" which is wide enough to cover both the questions of law and fact. Applying these tests we are unable to agree with the learned counsel for the appellants that the order of the Debt Relief Court was contrary to law so as to warrant interference in revision under Section 17 of the Act by the learned District Judge. It was not open to the learned District Judge to interfere with the finding of fact merely because on the evidence, he took a different view. It was not open to the learned District Judge to interfere with the finding of fact merely because on the evidence, he took a different view. In such a situation the order of the Debt Relief Court cannot be called an order "Contrary to law" and in such circumstances, the revisional Court has no power under Section 17 of the Act to disturb the finding of fact arrived at by appreciation of the oral and documentary evidence." 11. In view of the above, I am satisfied That the order passed by the Debt Relief Court, under challenge before the revisional Court, was on the basis of the oral and documentary evidence and it cannot be said to be contrary to law so as to warrant any interference, in exercise of revisional powers, by the learned District Judge. 12. Consequently, this writ petition is allowed. The impugned order dated 10.09.1999 passed by the learned District Judge, is hereby quashed and set-aside. The order passed by the Debt Relief Court, Dholpur (DRA No. 11/91) on 12.3.97 is restored.Writ Petition allowed. *******