JUDGMENT 1. - The instant writ petition is directed against the order dated 17.7.2012 passed by the learned Civil judge (Sr. Div.) Begun in D.R.C. Case No. 31/2010 whereby the application filed by the petitioner defendant under Order 14, Rule 5 C.P.C. for amending the issues was rejected. 2. Facts in brief are that the respondent plaintiff filed an application under Section 6 of the Rajasthan Relief of Agriculture Indebtedness Act, 1957 against the petitioner. The proceedings were initiated on a promissory note alleged to have been executed by the petitioner defendant. The issue No. 1 which is relevant and germane for deciding the writ petition is reproduced hereinbelow:- " 1- vk;k izkFkhZ ls vizkFkhZ us fnukad 25-11-2009 dks ऱ 50]000@& v{kjs :i;s ipkl gtkj :i;s nks lSdM+k ekgokjh C;kt nj r; dj udn m/kkj ysdj izkFkhZ ds i{k esa izksesljh uksV e; jlhn fu"ikfnr dj vius gLrk{kj dj fn;s\ ---------------izkFkhZ 2- vk;k izkFkhZ vizkFkhZ ls d`f"k _.k fuokj.k vf/kfu;e ds rgr mDr jkf'k olwy djus dk vf/kdkjh gS\ ---------------izkFkhZ 3- vk;k izkFkZuk i= izkFkhZ fe;kn ckgj gksus ls [kkfjt ;ksX; gS\ ---------------vizkFkhZ 4- ;fn izkFkZuk i= izkFkhZ Lohdkj fd;k tkrk gS rks Hkqxrku dh izfdz;k D;k gksxh\ 5- vuqrks"kA " 3. The petitioner moved an application before the Trial Court under Order 14, Rule 5 C.P.C. claiming that he had not taken any loan from the plaintiff but as a matter of fact he had mortgaged his 3 bighas agricultural land and some silver ornaments with the respondent plaintiff for a sum of Rs. 25,000/-. A mortgage deed was also alleged to have been executed in relation to the transaction. At that point of time the plaintiff got blank promissory note from the defendant petitioner as guarantee. The petitioner accordingly moved application for framing issue regarding his property having been mortgaged with the plaintiff. The said application was rejected by the order dated 17.7.2012 which is impugned in this writ petition. 4. I have heard learned Counsel for parties and have gone through the impugned order. The suit filed by the plaintiff was based on a promissory note. The signatures of the defendant petitioner on the promissory note is not disputed. The petitioner tried to take a defence that he had mortgaged his land with the plaintiff and thus, the specific issue be framed in this regard. The suit filed by the plaintiff was based on a promissory note. The signatures of the defendant petitioner on the promissory note is not disputed. The petitioner tried to take a defence that he had mortgaged his land with the plaintiff and thus, the specific issue be framed in this regard. In the opinion of this Court, if at all the petitioner elected to take the plea of mortgage then he could have moved appropriate proceedings before the concerned Civil Court for redemption of the mortgage. The learned Trial Court was justified in holding that the burden of proving the issue No. 1 was on the plaintiff and if the plaintiff could not succeed in proving the issue, it would automatically stand disproved in favour of the defendant. 5. The view taken by the learned Trial Court, in my opinion, is neither perverse, nor illegal, nor contrary to facts available on record so as to call for any interference in this writ petition.Accordingly, the writ petition being without any merit is rejected. The stay application is also rejected.Petition dismissed. *******