JUDGMENT 1. - Petitioner-debtor has preferred this writ petition under Articles 226 & 227 of the Constitution of India to question the legality and propriety of judgment dated 12.08.2015 passed by the Additional District Judge, Suratgarh District Sriganganasgar (for short 'the learned Revisional Court') whereby learned Revisional Court while dismissing the revision of the petitioner has affirmed the judgment and decree dated 03.04.2014 passed by the Debt Relief Court-cum-Civil Judge (Sr.Division), Suratgarh (for short 'the DRC'). 2. The facts in brief are that respondent-applicant laid a petition under Section 6(2) of the Rajasthan Relief of Agricultural Indebtedness Act, 1957 (for short 'the Act') against the petitioner claiming that petitioner is an agriculturist who has borrowed a sum of Rs. 1,00,000/- from him on 05.03.2005 by executing a promissory note in presence of witnesses. As per the version of the respondent, despite notice, the amount aforesaid is not paid by the petitioner and that prompted him to file this claim petition. 3. The claim petition is contested by the petitioner by submitting its reply. 4. The learned DRC framed five issues for determination and thereafter recorded evidence of rival parties. On evaluation of evidence and other materials available on record, learned DRC decided first four issues in favour of respondent and while resorting to issue No.5, learned DRC while exercising power under Section 11 of the Act granted indulgence to the petitioner to pay the requisite amount in instalments. 5. Feeling aggrieved by the aforesaid judgment of learned DRC, the petitioner preferred a revision petition under Section 17 of the Act before the Revisional Court and the learned Revisional Court upon examination of the matter afresh, fully concurred with the findings and conclusions of learned DRC by dismissing the revision petition. 6. I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the impugned judgments and other materials available on record. 7. There remains no quarrel that powers of the Revisional Court under Section 17 of the Act are wider than the revisional power of this Court under Section 115 CPC and a Revisional Court under Section 17 of the Act can re-appreciate the evidence available on record. The Revisional Court while exercising its jurisdiction may interfere even with the findings of fact recorded by learned DRC. The Revisional Court while exercising its jurisdiction may interfere even with the findings of fact recorded by learned DRC. However, while exercising the revisional jurisdiction, the Revisional Court is required to see whether the impugned order is contrary to law or learned DRC while adjudicating the application under Section 6(2) of the Act has committed any jurisdictional error. Considering its wide powers, the learned Revisional Court has examined the impugned judgment of learned DRC threadbare and even made endeavour to dilate on finding of fact recorded by learned DRC on each and every issue. After thrashing out the matter within its wide power of revisional jurisdiction under Section 17 of the Act, the learned Revisional Court has found that impugned judgment of learned DRC is neither de hors the law nor it is infirm on account of any jurisdictional error. 8. Upon examining the impugned judgment of the Revisional Court, in my considered opinion, the same is not liable to be interfered with in exercise of supervisory jurisdiction of this Court. As there is a concurrent finding by both the courts below, I do not feel persuaded to interfere with the impugned judgment of the learned Revisional Court in exercise of supervisory jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India.Consequently, the petition fails and the same is hereby dismissed summarily.Petition dismissed. *******