ORDER : 1. The instant petition has been filed by the petitioner challenging the order dated 18.01.2011 passed by Debt Relief Court and Civil Judge (Senior Division), Raisinghnagar in DRC Case No. 40/2000 whereby the application filed by the respondent No.3 under Section 6(2) of the Rajasthan Relief of Agricultural Indebtedness Act 1957 (for short “Act of 1957”) has been allowed. 2. The petitioner has further challenged the order and decree dated 28.04.2012 passed by the Additional District Judge, Raisinghnagar in Civil Revision No. 3/2011, whereby the revision filed by the petitioner has been rejected. The petitioner has pleaded in his petition that both the orders passed by the Courts below are perverse and erroneous and as such they are required to be set aside by this Court. The petitioner has pleaded in his petition that in spite of no material produced by the private respondent in his application under Section 6 (2) of the Act of 1957, the impugned order has been passed. 3. The petitioner has further pleaded in his petition that in the cross-examination of the respondent No.3 it was clearly admitted by him that he passed his graduation in the year 1998 from Chandigarh and the alleged transaction took place in the year 1997. 4. The petitioner has further pleaded that amount of interest which has been calculated has also been done on the wrong basis and the petitioner could not have been fastened for paying the interest. 5. Mr. Trilok Joshi, learned counsel for the petitioner while making submissions in support of his case tried to assail the impugned orders on the ground of perversity. Learned counsel argued that in view of clear admission of the private respondent that he was not in Rajasthan while doing his graduation, the very transaction itself became doubtful and in spite of such clear evidence, the findings in favour of respondent No.3 could not have been recorded and such findings amount to perversity. Learned counsel further argued that the petitioner had never executed the documents on which reliance has been placed and yet both the Courts below have not looked into this very important aspect of the matter. 6. Learned counsel further argued that the petitioner had never executed the documents on which reliance has been placed and yet both the Courts below have not looked into this very important aspect of the matter. 6. Learned counsel for the petitioner argued that the impugned orders affect the vital right of the petitioner and for no reasons and without having proper evidence in favour of respondent No.3, a huge amount of Rs.75,000/- along with interest, has been directed to be paid by the petitioner. 7. Per-contra, learned counsel for the respondents Mr. V.K. Agarwal submits that there are concurrent findings of both the Courts below and this Court while exercising the writ jurisdiction under Articles 226 & 227 of the Constitution of India may not like to interfere with the findings which have been arrived at by considering the evidence. Mr. V.K. Agarwal, learned counsel for the respondents further argued that the petitioner, in fact, even denied the affidavit which was executed by him and as such the credence of the petitioner cannot be relied upon. Learned counsel further submitted that one witness PW-3 Vijay Kumar was examined before the Court below who was writer of the pro note and the petitioner in the entire petition did not question the evidence which was led by PW-3 - Vijay Kumar. 8. Heard both the learned counsel for the parties. 9. This Court finds that the Debt Relief Court has passed the order dated 18.01.2011 after framing five issues. The said Court has taken into account the evidence led by the parties and after considering the entire evidence came to conclusion that the application of the respondent under Section 6 (2) of Act of 1957 was liable to be allowed and interest @ 9% p.a. was liable to be paid. This Court finds that the order passed by the Debt Relief Court is based on proper appreciation of evidence and as such this Court finds no reason to exercise its writ jurisdiction under Articles 226 & 227 of the Constitution of India for substituting the finding which have been recorded by the competent Court. This Court finds that the order passed by the Debt Relief Court is based on proper appreciation of evidence and as such this Court finds no reason to exercise its writ jurisdiction under Articles 226 & 227 of the Constitution of India for substituting the finding which have been recorded by the competent Court. The submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner that the entire case of respondent No.3 is based on wrong facts as respondent No.3 himself had passed the graduation in the year 1998 from Punjab, this Court finds that the said fact cannot be a relevant fact for denying the claim or dismissing the application of the respondent No.3. The presence of respondent No.3 is being doubted by the petitioner at the time of relevant transaction only on account of studies being done by the him at Chandigarh and the same fact does not have any important bearing to the issue involved in the instant case. 10. The submission of learned counsel for the petitioner that the revisional Court has committed illegality and rejected the revision, this Court finds that the revisional Court has also considered the submissions raised by the parties and after proper appreciation of facts and the material available on record, the order of the Debt Relief Court has been upheld. The order passed by the revisional Court is a detailed order which has been passed after taking into account all the submissions raised by the petitioner in the revision petition. This Court does not find any merit in the submissions of learned counsel for the petitioner that findings are perverse and the same are required to be set aside by this Court. 11. This Court finds substance in the submissions of the learned counsel for the respondents that if both the Courts below have exercised their jurisdiction, this Court may not like to exercise its power and substitute the findings of the fact arrived at by the Courts below. 12. This Court finds that when petitioner himself is denying, even execution of an affidavit and the evidence which was led by witness PW-3 Vijay Kumar, is not challenged/rebutted in any manner, this Court would not like to exercise the power to set aside such findings of fact. Accordingly, the instant petition being devoid of merit stands dismissed.