JUDGMENT 1. - This writ petition is directed against order dated 10.11.14 passed by the Additional District Judge, Srikaranpur, whereby a revision petition preferred by the respondents, has been allowed and order dated 3.3.10 passed by the Debt Relief Court, Srikaranpur in Case No.13/04, rejecting the application preferred by the respondents no. 3 & 4, under Section 6(2) of the Rajasthan Relief of Agriculture Indebtedness Act, 1957 (for short "the Act"), has been set aside and the matter stands remanded to the Debt Relief Court for decision afresh, after hearing both the parties. 2. The respondents preferred an application under Section 6 (2) of the Act for recovery of agriculture debt quantified at Rs. 3,45,440/- against the petitioner before the Debt Relief Court, Srikaranpur. The application was contested by the petitioner by filing a reply thereto. The petitioner had taken the specific stand before the Debt Relief Court that he is engaged in the work of transportation and does not earn his livelihood mainly from agriculture and therefore, being not an agriculturist in terms of clause (b) of Section 2 of the Act, the application preferred by the respondents no.3 & 4, under Section 6(2) of the Act, is not maintainable. 3. On the basis of the pleadings of the parties, the Debt Relief Court framed the issues in the following terms: "(1) vk;k fd vukosnd us vkosnd ls fnukad 19-1-2001 dks 2]54]000@& :i;s uxn crkSj m/kkj izkIr fd;s o mlh jkst ,d izksuksV o jlhn rgjhj dj vkosnd dks lkSai fn,A &&vkosnd&& (2) vk;k fd vukosnd d`"kd gSA &&vkosnd&& (3) vk;k fd izksuksV o jlhn fnukad 19-1-2001 QthZ o dwVjfpr gSaA &&vukosnd&& (4) vuqrks"k " 4. After due consideration of the evidence on record, the Debt Relief Court decided all the issues against the respondents and in favour of the petitioner. Accordingly, the application preferred was rejected vide order dated 3.3.10. Aggrieved thereby, a revision petition preferred by the respondents has been allowed by the Additional District Judge, Srikaranpur observing that the evidence on record has not been properly appreciated and accordingly, the matter has been remanded to the Debt Relief Court for decision afresh, after hearing both the parties and keeping in view the observations made by the court. Hence, this petition. 5. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that the order impugned passed by the revisional court is ex facie erroneous. Hence, this petition. 5. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that the order impugned passed by the revisional court is ex facie erroneous. Learned counsel submitted that the respondents having failed to prove that the petitioner is an agriculturist, the application preferred was rightly dismissed by the Debt Relief Court. Learned counsel submitted that the Debt Relief Court having decided all the issues after appreciation of the evidence on record, there was no occasion for the revisional court to remand the matter to the Debt Relief Court for consideration afresh. 6. On the other hand, counsel appearing for the respondents no.3 & 4 submitted that the finding recorded by the Debt Relief court on issue No.2 having been found perverse, the revisional court has committed no error in setting aside the judgment and decree and remanding the matter to the Debt Relief Court for consideration afresh. 7. I have considered the rival submissions and perused the material on record. 8. A bare perusal of Section 17 of the Act reveals that a person aggrieved by an order of Debt Relief Court may invoke the revisional jurisdiction of District Court as a matter of right. The District Judge while exercising the revisional jurisdiction is empowered to revise the judgment of the Debt Relief Court if it is found to be contrary to law or that the court has exercised a jurisdiction not vested in it by law or has failed to exercise a jurisdiction vested in it by law. That apart, the court can interfere with the order if the installments fixed therein under sub-section (3) of Section 11 are found to be inequitable. 9. Indisputably, while passing the order dated 3.3.10, all the issues framed have been decided by the Debt Relief Court, after due consideration of the evidence on record. A perusal of the order passed by the revisional court reveals that while reversing the findings recorded on the issue No.2, the reasons given by the Debt Relief Court for the conclusion arrived at have not been appreciated by the revisional court in their entirety and objectivity. That apart, the Debt Relief Court having decided all the issues after appreciation of the evidence on record, there was no occasion for the revisional court to remand the matter to the Debt Relief Court by recording the finding only on issue No.2. That apart, the Debt Relief Court having decided all the issues after appreciation of the evidence on record, there was no occasion for the revisional court to remand the matter to the Debt Relief Court by recording the finding only on issue No.2. In the considered opinion of this court, the revisional court should have examined the validity of the order passed by the Debt Relief Court in its entirety, keeping in view, the scope of the power of the revisional court under Section 17 of the Act, noticed as hereinabove. 10. For the aforementioned reasons, the order impugned passed by the revisional court deserves to be set aside and the matter needs to be remanded to the revisional court for decision afresh, after hearing both the parties. 11. Accordingly, the writ petition is allowed. The order impugned dated 10.11.14 passed by the Additional District Judge, Srikaranpur in Revision Petition No.2/10 is set aside. The revisional court is directed to decide the revision petition preferred by the respondents afresh, in accordance with law. No order as to costs.Petition allowed. *******