JUDGMENT 1. - This writ petition has been filed by the petitioner- plaintiff under Article 227 of the Constitution of India aggrieved by the impugned order dated 18.5.2009 (Annex. 4) passed by the learned Additional District Judge, Srikaranpur in Civil Suit No. 51/2006, Laxman Ram v. Ramkaran , whereby the learned trial Court at the fag end of the trial in a suit for specific performance, framed preliminary issue as to the maintainability of the suit on the oral objection raised by the defendant-respondent that since the alleged consideration paid of Rs. 78,800/- was debt given to the defendant by the plaintiff, therefore, the plaintiff cannot claim any relief but the debt being covered by the provisions of Rajasthan Relief of Agriculture Indebtedness Act, 1957 (for short hereinafter referred to as 'Act of 1957') therefore, the plaintiff-petitioner is required to approach the Deft Relief Court under the said Act. Aggrieved by the impugned order dated 18.5.2009, the petitioner-plaintiff approached this Court by way of present writ petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. 2. This Court while issuing notices to the defendant-respondent, had stayed the operation of the impugned order vide ad interim order dated 18.9.2009. The trial is pending at that stage since then and about four years have passed by that time. 3. Mr. Rajesh Parihar, learned counsel for the petitioner-plaintiff relied upon following case laws: 1. Santokh Singh v. Harish Lila reported in 2004(3) DNJ (Raj.) 1322 2. Kasturi Lal v. Ramnath reported in 1967 RLW (Raj.) 220 4. Mr. D.L. Rawla, learned counsel appearing on behalf of respondent- defendant urged that in view of alternative remedy available to the plaintiff, he could not approach the trial Court, therefore, the suit was not maintainable. 5. Having hear the learned counsel for the parties, this Court is of the opinion that the impugned order dated 18.5.2009 passed by the learned trial Court cannot be sustained. Both the parties are belonging to same case i.e. "Nayak", and as far as the question of restriction of transfer of the property by the persons of SC/ST to General category envisaged under Section 42 of the Rajasthan Tenancy Act is concerned, the restriction does not apply in the present case. 6. Both the parties are belonging to same case i.e. "Nayak", and as far as the question of restriction of transfer of the property by the persons of SC/ST to General category envisaged under Section 42 of the Rajasthan Tenancy Act is concerned, the restriction does not apply in the present case. 6. The consistent view of this Court in the judgments cited at bar by the learned counsel for the petitioner-plaintiff is that once the consideration received under the agreement to sell is treated as such, then the 'debt' gets extinguished and the provisions of Act of 1957 do not apply in such circumstances and therefore, the suit for specific performance before the trial Court cannot be barred. 7. In the case of Santokh Singh v. Harish Lila (supra), a co-ordinate bench of this court held as under: "9. In my considered opinion, agreement for sale is not contract of the nature suggested by provisions of Act of 1957. If seller taken money in advance pursuant to agreement for sale, it cannot be said that vendor (seller) 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 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 debtor and thus, for the purpose of debt, there must be relationship of creditor and debtor and it 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, earnest money cannot be equated with the word "debt". 11. 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." 8. In the case of Kasturi Lal v. Ramnath (supra), the learned Single Judge of this Court held as under: "6. The Rajasthan Relief of Agriculture Indebtedness Act can only apply when there is a debt as defined in the Act, that is a liability owing to a creditor. It only deals with subsisting debts. When the debtor enters into an agreement of sale with his creditor and the consideration for the agreement is a debt, the debt is extinguished or wiped out and there is no longer any subsisting debt. It is not open to an agriculturist who has entered into such an agreement to apply for the determination of his debt under Section 6 as there is no subsisting debt left. The debt which was wiped out completely as a result of the agreement cannot be reopened under the Act for it is no longer a subsisting liability and a suit to specifically enforce the agreement can neither be stayed nor abated. 7. I accordingly allow the revision application, set aside the order abating the suit and remand it for decision in accordance with law to the Court of the Senior Civil Judge, Bundi. In the circumstances of the case, I leave the parties to bear their own costs of this revision application." 9. 7. I accordingly allow the revision application, set aside the order abating the suit and remand it for decision in accordance with law to the Court of the Senior Civil Judge, Bundi. In the circumstances of the case, I leave the parties to bear their own costs of this revision application." 9. Respectfully following the aforesaid decisions and agreeing with the reasons given therein, the impugned order of the learned trial Court dated 18.5.2009 (Annex.-4) framing the additional preliminary issue as to the maintainability of the suit at the oral objection of the defendant, at the fag end of the trial, cannot be sustained. The present writ petition, therefore, deserves to be allowed and the same is, accordingly, allowed and the impugned order dated 18.5.2009 (A-4) is set aside and the learned trial Court is requested to proceed further, in the trial expeditiously. No costs. A copy of this order be sent to the concerted parties and the learned trial Court below forthwith.Petition Allowed. *******