JUDGMENT 1. - By this writ petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner has assailed the impugned judgment and decree dated 21.01.2014 (Annex.P/7) and Annex.P/8 respectively passed by the Additional District Judge, Raisinghnagar, whereby it has upheld the judgment and decree dated 10.02.2010 passed by the learned Debt Relief Court and Civil Judge (Senior Division) Raisinghnagar. 2. The facts, in brief, are that the third respondent, Niranjan Lal, filed an application under Section 6(2) of Rajasthan Relief Agricultural Indebtedness Act, 1957 (for short, 'the Act of 1957') before the learned Debt Relief Court, Raisinghnagar against the petitioner for recovering a sum of Rs. .3,53,200/- including interest. While asserting his status as agriculturist, the third respondent has averred, in the application, that the petitioner borrowed a sum of Rs. .2,30,000/- from him on 09.06.2001 and a promissory note was also executed to this effect. The amount borrowed by the petitioner was not repaid to the third respondent and in that situation application under Section 6 (2) of the Act of 1957 was laid. The application was contested by the petitioner and the learned trial Court after completion of trial by its judgment dated 10.02.2010 decided all the issues in favour of respondent and against the petitioner. The learned Debt Relief Court also recorded a finding that the respondent is an agriculturist and he is entitled for the requisite amount and accordingly a decree to this effect was passed. 3. After passing of the decree by the Debt Relief Court, the third respondent expired, and therefore, an appeal was preferred against the legal representatives of third respondent, who are also arrayed as respondents in the present petition. The appellate Court, i.e., learned Additional District Judge, by the impugned judgment dated 21.01.2014, fully concurred with the findings and conclusions arrived at by the learned trial Court and consequently dismissed the appeal of the petitioner. 4. I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the materials available on record. 5. Upon bare perusal of the judgments rendered by the Debt Relief Court and the appellate Court, it is crystal clear that both the courts below have recorded concurrent finding of fact against the petitioner, which is based on proper appreciation of evidence. 4. I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the materials available on record. 5. Upon bare perusal of the judgments rendered by the Debt Relief Court and the appellate Court, it is crystal clear that both the courts below have recorded concurrent finding of fact against the petitioner, which is based on proper appreciation of evidence. The learned trial Court has recorded a categorical finding that the petitioner has borrowed the requisite amount from the respondent and in token thereof has executed a pro-note. That apart, both the learned courts below have recorded finding in clear and unequivocal terms that third respondent was an agriculturist and as such he was well within his rights to invoke Section 6(2) of the Act of 1957 for recovery of the amount. 6. A concurrent finding of fact of both the courts below cannot be upset by this Court in exercise of supervisory jurisdiction of this Court until and unless the findings are perverse or are contrary to the evidence and other materials on record. Supervisory jurisdiction of this Court enshrined under Article 227 of the Constitution is to be exercised with great care and circumspection and such a jurisdiction cannot be equated with an appellate jurisdiction. 7. On examining the matter, in its entirety, in my considered opinion, the findings of both the learned courts below are neither perverse, nor such findings have occasioned failure of justice. There is apparently no reason to conclude that the impugned judgments suffer from the vice of an error apparent on the face of record. Thus, in limited scope of judicial review, I find no reason to interfere with the impugned judgments.Resultantly, the writ petition lacks merit and the same is, accordingly, dismissed in limine.Petition dismissed. *******