JUDGMENT 1. - Having heard the learned counsel for the appellant and having perused the material placed on record, we are unable to find even a wee bit of reason to consider interference in this intra-Court appeal against the order dated 23.07.2013 passed in CWP No. 9423/2012 whereby, the learned single Judge of this Court has declined to entertain the writ petition against the order dated 07.01.2011 as passed by the Debt Relief Court, Kapasan (District Chittorgarh) in DRC case No. 2/2005. 2. As regards the subject of this appeal, the sum and substance of the matter is that in the proceedings taken up against him in the Debt Relief Court, the present appellant raised an objection that he did not answer to the description of an agriculturist' within the meaning of the expression used in the Rajasthan Relief of Agricultural Indebtedness Act, 1957. The issue arising on this objection was considered and determined by Debt Relief Court in its order dated 07.01.2011. Therein, after noticing the evidence on record, the Court rejected the contention of the appellant that his main source of livelihood was that of contractor-ship and held that agriculture was the principal source of his earning. 3. In the writ petition sought to be maintained against the order aforesaid, the learned single Judge took note of all the contentions of the learned counsel for the petitioner-appellant and found no reason to interfere while observing, inter alia, as under: "From perusal of order impugned, it is apparent that the petitioner is not a registered contractor. It is also not in dispute that he earned a sum of Rs. 31,000/- and odd by sale of Mustard Seeds yield. The learned trial Court had also taken into consideration availability of agricultural land with the petitioner and further has admitted agriculture operations over it. True it is, merely having revenue record pertaining to agricultural land is not sufficient to establish that a person is an agriculturist but in the instant matter the trial Court has taken into consideration all other relevant factors, which clearly indicates involvement of the petitioner in agriculture and resting of his main livelihood on that, as such, no interference of this Court in the finding of fact is required while exercising powers under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India." 4. Seeking to challenge the order aforesaid, the learned counsel for the appellant submits that for merely having received some share in the agricultural land by way of succession would not bring the appellant within the definition of agriculturist, particularly when he was not deriving his livelihood wholly or mainly by agriculture. We are afraid, the submissions do not make out a case for interference. 5. The Debt Relief Court has the jurisdiction to deal with issue as raised and to consider and determine the same with reference to the material on record. The Debt Relief Court has indeed noticed the evidence as adduced, oral and documentary and then, has recorded the specific finding that the principal source of earning of the appellant was agriculture and not contractor-ship, as alleged. 6. The finding so recorded remains essentially a finding of fact and there had been hardly any scope of interference in such a finding in the writ jurisdiction of this Court. Yet the learned single Judge has taken note of all the contentions of the learned counsel for the petitioner-appellant and, after examining the record, has indicated the facts that the petitioner-appellant was not a registered contractor, as also that he earned a sum of Rs. 31,000/-and odd by sale of Mustard Seeds yield. 7. In fact, even this much of analysis on the part of the learned single Judge, in our view was not requisite because the scope of interference in the writ jurisdiction in such matters is circumscribed by well known principles, as indicated by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Sadhana Lodh v. National Insurance Co. Ltd. and Anr., (2003) 3 SCC 524 : AIR 2003 SC 1561 in the following: "7. The supervisory jurisdiction conferred on the High Courts under Article 227 of the Constitution is confined only to see whether an inferior Court or tribunal has proceeded within its parameters and not to correct an error apparent on the face of the record, much less of an error of law. In exercising the supervisory power under Article 227 of the Constitution, the High Court does not act as an appellate Court or the tribunal. In exercising the supervisory power under Article 227 of the Constitution, the High Court does not act as an appellate Court or the tribunal. It is also not permissible to a High Court on a petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution to review or re-weigh the evidence upon which the inferior Court or tribunal purports to have passed the order or to correct errors of law in the decision." 8. It is but clear that in the present matter, where the Debt Relief Court had dealt with the objection raised by the present appellant after due appreciation of the material on record and there was nothing before the learned single Judge to find if the Debt Relief Court did not proceed within its parameters; and the impugned order was not shown suffering from perversity or any other infirmity leading to gross failure of justice, in our view, exercise of writ jurisdiction has rightly been declined. 9. The scope of interference in the writ jurisdiction itself being conditioned by the principles referred hereinabove, obviously, there is no reason for this Court to consider re-appreciation of evidence in this intra-court appeal preferred against the order passed by the writ Court. 10. For there being no reason to consider interference within the scope of writ jurisdiction, the submissions on the part of the appellant seeking re-appreciation of evidence could only be rejected. 11. Accordingly and in view of the above, this appeal fails and is, therefore, dismissed.Appeal dismissed. *******