S.N. Modi, J.
1. The plaintiffs have preferred this revision petition challenging the correctness of the order of the District Judge, Merta dated December 15, 1976 whereby the suit filed by the plaintiffs was returned holding that it was not entertainable by a civil court.
2. The plaintiffs instituted a Suit on 2-1-1976 for the recovery of Rs. 11896/- from the defendant-respondent. It is common ground between the parties that the plaintiffs are money lenders within the meaning of the Rajasthan Money Lenders Act, 1963 and that the suit was hi ought on the basis of a promissory note alleged to have been executed by the defendant on 9-4-1972 i.e. after the commencement of the Rajasthan Money Lenders Act, 1963. It is also not in dispute that the defendant-respondent in this case is a member of a scheduled caste 'Balai' by caste. It is also rot in dispute that the plaintiff should have initiated proceedings for determination of the debt under Section 6 of the Rajasthan Relief of Agricultural Indebtedness Act, 1957 (Act No. 28/1957). On the basis of the above admitted facts the learned District Judge has held that the suit fifed by the plaintiffs is not entertainable by him under Section 47 of the Rajasthan Money Lenders Act. Section 47 of the Rajasthan Money Lenders Act runs as under:
47. Provisions of Rajasthan Act, 28 of 1957 saved. : Nothing in this Act shall affect any of the provisions of the Rajasthan Relief of Agricultural Indebtedness Act, 1957 (Rajasthan Act 28 of 1957), and no court shall entertain or proceed under this Act with any suit or proceedings can be taken under the said Act.
The above section clearly bars any suit or proceeding relating to any Joan in respect of which proceedings can be taken under the Rajasthan Relief of Agricultural Indebtedness Act, 1957. As observed above it is an admitted fact that the plaintiffs could have initiated proceedings under the Rajasthan Relief of Agricultural Indebtedness Act against the defendant. The learned District Judge was therefore fully justified in returning the plaint as it was not entertainable by a civil court.
3. There is no force in this revision petition & it is dismissed. Having regard to the circumstances of the case the parties are left to bear their own costs.