JUDGMENT 1. - This writ petition has been filed by the petitioner aggrieved against judgment dated 21.05.2011 passed by the Debt Relief Court, Churu and judgment dated 28.10.2013 passed by the Additional District Judge, Rajgarh, District Churu, whereby, the revision filed by the petitioner against judgment dated 21.05.2011 has been rejected. 2. The respondent - Balbeer Singh filed an application under the Rajasthan Relief of Agricultural Indebtedness Act, 1957 ('the Act') seeking recovery of a sum of Rs. 35,000/- lent to the petitioner along with interest based on the promissory note and the receipt executed by the petitioner. 3. The application was opposed by the petitioner by filing reply and he totally denied even acquaintance with the respondent. 4. The Debt Relief Court framed six issues; on behalf of the applicant - two witnesses were examined and four documents were exhibited; on behalf of the petitioner despite sufficient opportunity no evidence was produced. 5. The Deft Relief Court after hearing the parties, allowed the application filed by the petitioner and ordered for payment of Rs. 35,000/- along with interest @ 9% per annum from 10.05.2006 and ordered for repayment in installments of Rs. 2,000/- per month. 6. Feeling aggrieved, the petitioner filed revision petition. 7. The revisional court upheld the findings as recorded by the Debt Relief Court, however, partly allowed the revision petition and reduced the rate of interest from 9% per annum to 6% per annum. 8. It is submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that both the authorities below were not justified in accepting the claim made by the respondent, inasmuch as, no loan whatsoever was advanced to the petitioner and, therefore, judgments impugned deserve to be quashed and set aside. 9. Besides the fact that the present writ petition has been filed after inordinate delay of about 19 months from the date the order was passed by the revisional court; the findings of both the authorities below are concurrent in nature; despite taking the plea of total denial, the petitioner did not lead any evidence whatsoever in support of his contention. Besides the fact that the present writ petition has been filed after inordinate delay of about 19 months from the date the order was passed by the revisional court; the findings of both the authorities below are concurrent in nature; despite taking the plea of total denial, the petitioner did not lead any evidence whatsoever in support of his contention. Further, learned counsel for the petitioner has failed to point out any perversity in the findings recorded by the Debt Relief Court as upheld by the revisional court and, therefore, the same do not call for any interference; the revisional court has already granted the admissible relief to the petitioner by reducing the rate of interest from 9% to 6%. 10. In view of the above discussion, no case for interference in the judgments impugned is called for in the present writ petition. There is no substance in the writ petition and the same is, therefore, dismissed.Petition dismissed. *******