The appellant in the second appeal seeks review of the

judgment. The parties are referred to in this order as they appear in

the suit from which the second appeal arose.

2. The plaintiff is a bank. The defendants who are husband

and wife availed an agricultural loan from the plaintiff bank. As the

defendants failed to repay the loan, the plaintiff instituted a suit for

realisation of the loan outstanding. The defendants did not dispute the

loan outstanding. They, however, contended that they would fall under

the category of 'small farmer', defined in the Agricultural Debt Waiver

and Debt Relief Scheme, 2008 ('the Scheme') and their loan

outstanding is, therefore, liable to be waived under the Scheme. The

fact that if the defendants were to fall under the category of 'small

farmer' as defined in the Scheme, their loan outstanding is liable to be

waived, is not a fact which was disputed by the plaintiff. The trial court

accepted the contention of the defendants and dismissed the suit.

Though the plaintiff took up the matter in appeal, the appellate court

3

confirmed the decision of the trial court. The plaintiff has therefore,

come up in the second appeal challenging the decisions of the courts

below.

3. The following were the substantial questions of law

formulated in the second appeal;

1) Whether the interpretation placed by the courts below on

the provisions of Ext.B2 Agricultural Debt Waiver and Debt

Relief Scheme, 2008, is legally correct?

2) Whether the trial court was legally justified in finding that

the respondents are Small farmers under Ext.B2 Scheme,

when the respondents themselves have no such claim in

their pleadings and no evidence was let in to support such a

claim?

This court, on a reappraisal of the materials on record and after

hearing the learned counsel for the appellant, found that the

concurrent findings rendered by the courts below that the defendants

would fall under the category of 'small farmer' as defined in the

Scheme is in order. Consequently the second appeal was dismissed.

4. The learned counsel for the plaintiff contended that the

permissible waiver under the Scheme was only Rs.1,00,000/- with

interest for working capital loans and the suit was instituted only after

writing off the said amount. It was also contended by the learned

counsel for the plaintiff that, in the circumstances, even after applying

4

the interpretation given by the courts below and this court, the

defendants will not be entitled to have the loan outstanding claimed in

the suit written off. It was pointed out by the learned counsel that the

said aspects were omitted to be brought to the notice of this court at

the time of hearing and it is in the said background that the review

petition is filed by the plaintiff.

5. The materials on record do not indicate that the

contention taken by the plaintiff in the review petition is a contention

that was taken by them in the proceedings before the courts below. As

evident from the substantial questions of law formulated in the second

appeal, such a contention was not taken by the plaintiff in the second

appeal as well. In so far as the contention now taken by the plaintiff is

not a contention which was taken before the courts below or before

this court in the second appeal, the plaintiff cannot be heard to

contend that the decision in the second appeal is vitiated by errors

apparent on the face of the records. The review petition, in the

circumstances, is without merits and the same is, accordingly,

dismissed.

Sd/-

P.B.SURESH KUMAR, JUDGE.

tgs

5