JUDGMENT 1. - At the outset the learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the show cause notices have been served but nobody has appeared for the respondents; and that the amount of Rs. 5,000/- as required by the order dated 25.08.2005 has indeed been deposited by the petitioner. Thereafter, on merits, the learned counsel referred to the facts of the case that an application was moved by the respondent No. 1 under Section 6 of the Rajasthan Relief of Agricultural Indebtedness Act, 1957 ('the Act of 1957') while alleging an amount of Rs. 14,377/- having been advanced by him to the petitioner on 31.07.1992 carrying interest @2% per month; and seeking recovery of the said amount with interest. The learned counsel submitted that the application so moved was opposed by the petitioner while denying the alleged transaction and with the objection that he was not an agriculturist within the meaning of the Act of 1957 and hence, the application was not competent. 2. The learned counsel referred to the observations made in paragraph 9 of the order dated 31.03.2000 as passed by the Debt Relief Court, Shahpura noticing the contention on the part of the petitioner that he was not an agriculturist and hence the application was not maintainable; and submitted that such a contention has not even been dealt with by the learned Debt Relief Court. The learned counsel further referred to the provisions as contained in Section 6 of the Act of 1957 to point out that any application thereunder has to contain a statement about the debtor being an agriculturist and then referred to the definition as contained in Section 2 (b) of the Act of 1957 signifying that the "agriculturist" for the purpose of the said Act means a person who earns his livelihood wholly or mainly from agriculture. With reference to the decision of this Court in the case of Firm Jani Khushalji Jethaji v. Maharaj Bhopal Singh, 1964 RLW 118 , the learned counsel contended that it has to be precisely established that the debtor concerned derives substantial part of his income from agriculture and mere reference to the khatedari rights would not be sufficient; and for the creditor-applicant having failed to establish such fundamental facts, the application as made in this case, purportedly under Section 6 of the Act of 1957, was not maintainable at all. 3. 3. The learned counsel further contended that there had been a specific objection of the petitioner about the respondent No. 1 being engaged in money lending business and not having licence therefor but this contention has also not been dealt with properly and the learned Revisional Court merely brushed the said objection aside with the observations that the petitioner had not stated the fact about the respondent No. 1 being a moneylender in his examination-in-chief. Learned counsel contended that the fact of himself being a moneylender having been admitted by the respondent No. 1 in his cross-examination, nothing further was required to be stated by the petitioner. 4. None of the submissions as noticed above makes out a case for admission of this writ petition. Merely because the respondent has not appeared in response to the show cause notice, it cannot be said that the petition is required to be admitted for this reason alone and even without the petitioner making out a case worth consideration. Similarly, if the petitioner has deposited the amount of Rs. 5,000/-, that was only in compliance of the order passed by this Court for the purpose of stay of recovery proceedings until the matter was considered by the Court after the return of the notices. In fact, the stay order was operative for 10 weeks from 25.08.2005 while the notices were made returnable within 6 weeks. Be that as it may, such deposit does not by itself make out a case for admission. 5. The contentions as urged on behalf of the petitioner: one, on the maintainability of the application under Section 6 of the Act of 1957 on the ground that the petitioner is not an agriculturist within the meaning of the said Act; and second, about want of money lending licence with the respondent No. 1 remain fundamentally baseless for the reason that such objections were not as such taken in the reply as filed by the petitioner before the Debt Relief Court. 6. In paragraph 1 of the application (Annex.1) as filed by the creditor, it was precisely stated that the opposite party, i.e., the present petitioner, was an agriculturist within the meaning of the Act of 1957. The petitioner did not put such an assertion to specific denial. 6. In paragraph 1 of the application (Annex.1) as filed by the creditor, it was precisely stated that the opposite party, i.e., the present petitioner, was an agriculturist within the meaning of the Act of 1957. The petitioner did not put such an assertion to specific denial. The vague and uncertain denial as unfolded in paragraph 1 of the reply (Annex.2) had been in relation to the particulars of the movable properties as stated in paragraph 4 of the said application. It is also noticed that no specific issue was framed in the trial of the said application on the question as to whether the petitioner was an agriculturist. It is further noticed that such an argument, about want of consideration of his objection by the Debt Relief Court was not even advanced by the petitioner before the Revisional Court. Neither the applicant-creditor was cross-examined on this aspect of the matter nor the petitioner chose to make a categoric assertion, of himself being not an agriculturist, in his statements before the Court. There appears no reason to consider determination of such a factual dispute in the writ proceedings when no such objection had been taken in precise terms before the Original Court and not even in the arguments before the Revisional Court. The contention as urged before this Court about the petitioner being not an agriculturist could only be rejected. 7. The position is worse in regard to the other objection about want of money lending licence with the creditor. In the reply as filed before the Debt Relief Court, there is not even a whisper about such objection nor any issue was framed in that regard. The observations as made by the learned Revisional Court that this aspect of the matter was not even suggested by the petitioner in his examination-in-chief cannot be said to be entirely unwarranted because such an objection was suggested only before the Revisional Court and never any attempt was made for raising a specific issue in that regard before the Original Court. 8. 8. Even while finding that the objection regarding money lending licence is not contained in the pleadings, in view of the submissions as made by the learned counsel, the statement of the creditor (Annex.3) has also been examined and it is noticed that the creditor has definitely admitted of having no money lending licence but then, read as a whole, his statement is nothing more than admitting some stray acts of lending the money; and is not of any admission of a regular money lending business. 9. Taking an overall view of the matter, this Court finds no substance in the contentions as attempted to be urged in this writ petition. On the contrary, it appears that the learned Revisional Court has taken a rather compassionate view of the matter and has modified the quarterly instalments as fixed by the Debt Relief Court from Rs. 4,463.25 to Rs. 2,000/- per month. 10. There being no force in the contentions sought to be urged, the writ petition does not merit admission. The writ petition deserves to be, and is hereby, dismissed summarily.Petition Dismissed. *******