Rajasthan High Court
Jitendra Singh Son Of Late Shri ... vs Nalneesh Son Of Late Nagendra on 18 February, 2021
Bench: Goverdhan Bardhar
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN
BENCH AT JAIPUR
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 2077/2021
Jitendra Singh Son Of Late Shri Pratap Singh, Aged About 50
Years, R/o Scheme No.1, Arya Nagar, Alwar
----Plaintiff/Non Revision Petitioner/Petitioner
Versus
1. Nalneesh Son Of Late Nagendra, Resident Of Village
Dhawla, Presently Dhawla House, Tilak Market, Alwar
2. Yashaswi Daughter Of Nagendra, Resident Of Village
Dhawla, Presently Dhawla House, Tilak Market, Alwar
3. Beena Naruka W/o Late Shri Nagendra Singh, Resident Of
Village Dhawla, Presently Dhawla House, Tilak Market,
Alwar
4. Rashmeena, W/o Ali Mohammad
5. Farmeena, W/o Shahjahan
6. Mohammad Rihan, Son Of Rahamat Minor
7. Mohammad Asif Son Of Rahamat Minor, All Respondent
Village Machdi, Tehsil And District Alwar Through
Sarparast Mother Rafeena W/o Rahmat
8. Ikram Son Of Ijadeen, R/o Machdi, Tehsil And District
Alwar
9. Vaseem Khan Son Of Ijadeen, R/o Machdi, Tehsil And
District Alwar
10. Aseem Son Of Ijadeen Minor, R/o Machdi, Tehsil And
District Alwar
--Defendant/Revision Petitioner/Respondent
11. Preeti Raghav Daughter Of Late Pratap Singh, R/o Plot
No. 36, Samvati Sagar, Vihar, Choudhary Colony, SDM
Court Ke Pass, Niwai District Tonk
12. Munni Devi W/o Shri Prahalad Daughter Of Bhawani
Singh, R/o Chhaju Singh Ki Haweli, Chhaju Singh Ki Gali,
Alwar
13. Lad Kanwar W/o Nawal Singh Daughter Of Bhawani
Singh, R/o 24/37, Swaran Path, Mansarovar Colony,
Jaipur
----Proforma Respondents
(2 of 4) [CW-2077/2021]
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Nawal Singh Sikarwar
For Respondent(s) : Mr. Gajendra Singh Rathore
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE GOVERDHAN BARDHAR
Order
18/02/2021
The instant writ petition has been filed by the petitioner
against the order dated 13.01.2021 passed by the Board of
Revenue, Rajasthan, Ajmer, in Revision No. 2021/52 (Nalneesh
and Others vs. Jitendra Singh and Others). The Board of Revenue
by the said order has stayed the operation of the order dated
17.12.2020 passed by the Assistant Collector, Alwar.
Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that vide
order dated 17.12.2020, the Assistant Collector, Alwar, passed an
order in the suit wherein an ex-parte ad interim stay order was
granted and the parties were directed to maintain status quo in
respect of revenue record as well as the possession of the
property in question. The defendants No. 1 and 3 to 10 in spite
appearing before the trial Court, filed the aforementioned revision
petition before the Board of Revenue, whereas the Board of
Revenue does not have jurisdiction to entertain the revision
petition against the ex-parte ad-interim stay order passed during
the pendency of the suit till the next date fixed for appearance of
the other party. Learned counsel further submits that such kind of
order can be challenged under Order 39 Rule 3 and 3A CPC by the
aggrieved party. The Board of Revenue erroneously passed the
impugned order dated 13.01.2021.
(3 of 4) [CW-2077/2021]
In support of his submissions, learned counsel has
placed reliance in the case of Vidya Devi and Others vs. Chautha
and Others, reported in 2016(1) WLN 248.
Perused the impugned order passed by the Board of
Revenue and the material placed before the Court.
The suit is pending before the trial Court and the trial
Court passed an ex-parte ad-interim stay order. The application
filed by the plaintiff for temporary injunction is pending before the
trial Court for final adjudication.
In the case of Vidya Devi and Others (supra), the Co-
ordinate Bench of this Court in Para No.5 of the judgment held ad-
infra:-
"5. It is well settled that when a provision for an
appeal is available, as in the instant case under Section
225 of the 1995 Act to the Revenue Appellate Authority
against an order including an interim one passed by the
Sub Divisional Officer, a revision petition before the Board
would not be maintainable. Reference in this regard can be
had to the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the
case of A. Venkatasubbiah Naidu Vs. S. Challappan and
Others, AIR 2000 SC 3032, wherein it has been held that
any interim order passed by a Civil Court is appealable in
terms of Order 43 Rule 1 CPC. A party aggrieved of an ad-
interim injunction can either move the appellate court or
approach the same court which has passed the same by
way of an application under Order 39 Rule 3A CPC if the
order be an ex-parte one. In fact the Board itself in its
impugned order has held that the revision petition laid
before it against an ad-interim order was not
maintainable. It is true that the defendant had also moved
an application under Section 10 CPC for the reason that
prior to laying of the partition suit by the plaintiff, one of
the co-khatedar had earlier also filed a similar suit. In the
circumstances the Board could indeed have required the
trial court to dispose the said application within a short
time but could not have interfered with the ad interim
order of status quo passed by the trial court for reason of
its lack of jurisdiction in a revision owing to availability of
an appeal against the impugned order."
(4 of 4) [CW-2077/2021]
In view of above, the impugned order dated
13.01.2021 passed by the Board of Revenue in revision petition
No. 2021/52 is set aside and the Board of Revenue is directed to
decide the aforementioned revision petition in accordance with law
within a period of fifteen days from the date of production of a
certified copy of this order.
The writ petition stands disposed of accordingly.
(GOVERDHAN BARDHAR),J
NK Sharma/49
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
