Ratanlal S/O Puranmal vs Babulal S/O Shri Rewadram @ Kajoda
2021 Latest Caselaw 2187 Raj/2

       HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN
                   BENCH AT JAIPUR

                S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 13777/2020

1.     Ratanlal S/o Puranmal,
2.     Ashok Kumar S/o Puranmal,
       Both R/o Prathvipura Tehsil Alwar Sub-Tehsil Malakheda
       District Alwar.
                                                   ----Petitioners/Defendants
                                    Versus
1.     Babulal,
2.     Nandlal,
3.     Laxminarayan,
4.     Ganglaheri,
5.     Mohar Singh,
6.     Dharam Singh,
7.     Sohan Lal,
       All are S/o Shri Rewadram @ Kajoda, R/o Village
       Impipura Tehsil Alwar, Sub-Tehsil Malakheda, District
       Alwar, Rajasthan.
                                                    ----Respondents/Plaintiffs

8. Rewadram @ Kajoda (Deceased), Through His Legal Representatives:-

8/1. Smt Tofali W/o Kajod @ Rewadram, 8/2. Babulal S/o Kajod @ Rewadya, aged about 55 years, 8/3. Nandlal S/o Kajod @ Rewadya, aged about 50 years, 8/4. Liccha @ Laxminarayan S/o Kajod @ Rewadya, aged about 48 years, 8/5. Gangalehari S/o Kajod Rewadya, aged about 45 years, 8/6. Mohar Singh S/o Kajod @ Rewadya, Aged About 40 Years, 8/7. Dharam Singh S/o Kajod @ Rewadya, Aged About 30 Years, 8/8. Sohan Lal S/o Kajod @ Rewadya, Aged About 25 Years, All are R/o Village Impipura Post Prathvipura Tehsil Malakheda District Alwar Rajasthan.

8/9. Vimla D/o Kajod @ Rewadya W/o Parmati, Aged About 58 Years, 8/10. Kamla D/o Kajod @ Rewadya W/o Kailash, Aged About 52

(2 of 5) [CW-13777/2020]

Years, 8/11. Mohara D/o Kajod @ Rewadya W/o Nandram, Aged About 35 Years, All are R/o Dargu Ka Bass Post Bader Tehsil Malakheda District Alwar Rajasthan.

8/12. Gora D/o Kajod @ Rewadya W/o Roshan, Aged About 32 Years, R/o Mali Bass Bisward Tehsil Malakheda District Alwar.

9. Mst. Laxmi W/o Late Ramkaran, R/o Village Impipura Tehsil Alwar Sub-Tehsil Malakheda District Alwar Rajasthan.

10. Lakhan Lal S/o Late Ramkaran, R/o Village Impipura Tehsil Alwar Sub-Tehsil Malakheda District Alwar Rajasthan.

11. Chiranjee S/o Late Ramkaran, R/o Village Impipura Tehsil Alwar Sub-Tehsil Malakheda District Alwar Rajasthan.

12. Jagdish S/o Late Ramkaran, R/o Village Impipura Tehsil Alwar Sub-Tehsil Malakheda District Alwar Rajasthan.

13. State Of Rajasthan, Through Land Holder Tehsildar.

                                                ----Respondents/Defendants


For Petitioner(s)         :     Mr. Gajendra Singh Rathore
For Respondent(s)         :

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MAHENDAR KUMAR GOYAL

Order

09/03/2021 This writ petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of

India has been filed against the order dated 18.03.2020 passed by

the Board of Revenue Rajasthan, Ajmer (for brevity 'the Board')

whereby the second appeal preferred by the respondents/plaintiffs

no.1 to 7 (for brevity 'the plaintiffs') against the judgment dated

29.02.2008 passed by the Revenue Appellate Authority in appeal

no.26/2007 affirming the judgment and decree dated 25.01.2007

passed by the Court of Sub Divisional Officer, Alwar, has been

(3 of 5) [CW-13777/2020]

allowed and the matter has been remanded back to the trial Court

for decision afresh.

Learned counsel for the petitioners/defendants submitted

that they have purchased the land in question through registered

sale deed dated 03.05.2000 from its recorded khatedar, i.e.,

father of the plaintiffs and to defeat their rights, collusive suit for

declaration and permanent injunction came to be filed against

them. Learned counsel submitted that the Court of SDO, Alwar,

vide its judgment and decree dated 25.01.2007, dismissed the

suit in the spirit of Lak Adalat. He submitted that the first appeal

preferred by the plaintiffs met with unsuccess; but, the Board

erred in accepting the second appeal on the premise that the

learned trial Court erred in deciding the contested suit in Lok

Adalat Camp that too without settling the issues. He submitted

that since the suit was dismissed in the spirit of Lok Adalat, the

Baord should not have interfered in the matter. Learned counsel,

relying upon the judgments of Hon'ble Apex Court of India in

cases of Sugandhi (Dead) by Lrs. and Anr. Vs. P. Rajkumar

Rep. by his Power Agent Imam Oli: AIR 2020 Supreme

Court 5486, Sambhaji and Ors. Vs. Gangabai and Ors.: AIR

2008 SC (Supp) 767 and Lisamma Antony and Anr. Vs.

Karthiyayani and Anr.: AIR 2015 SC (Supp) 1147, submitted

that the procedure is handmaid of justice and the same should not

come in way for imparting substantial justice. He, therefore,

prayed that the order impugned be quashed and set aside.

Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and perused

the record.

(4 of 5) [CW-13777/2020]

Undisputedly, the suit filed by the plaintiffs was contested

one inasmuch as the petitioners have, in their written statement,

disputed and denied the averments and claims made by the

plaintiffs in their plaint. The judgment dated 25.01.2007 passed

by the learned trial Court nowhere reveals that it was passed in

the spirit of Lok Adalat i.e. on the basis of compromise between

the parties; rather, the suit came to be dismissed on merit.

Learned counsel for the petitioners did not dispute genuineness of

the observation made by the Board that in the Lok Adalat Camp,

the contested cases could not be decided without compromise

between the parties. Since, the suit was decided on merit and not

on the basis of compromise between the parties, it could not have

been done so in the Lok Adalat Camp and could only have been

decided after striking the issues on the basis of pleadings therein

and recording evidence of the parties. Undisputedly, the suit was

dismissed by the learned trial Court without following the

procedure prescribed under the law and hence, the Board

committed no error in setting aside the same.

This Court is in respectful agreement with the law laid down

by the Hon'ble Apex Court of India in the cases relied upon by the

learned counsel for the petitioners; but, the same have no

applicability in the facts and circumstances of the case. In

Sugandhi (supra), the Apex Court was dealing with a case

arising out of application filed under Order 8 Rule 1A(3) CPC. In

Sambhaji (supra), the issue was whether the written statement

filed beyond the period of 90 days, could be taken on record or

not. In Lisamma Antony (supra), the Apex Court was dealing

with power of the Appellate Court to remand the matter where the

(5 of 5) [CW-13777/2020]

suit was not disposed of on preliminary issue by the learned trial

Court. Hence, these citations are of no help to the petitioners.

From the aforesaid analysis, it is apparent that the learned

trial Court erred in dismissing the suit and the first appellate Court

also erred in affirming the findings. The Board has rightly allowed

the second appeal preferred by the plaintiffs and has committed

no error in directing the learned trial Court to decide the suit

afresh in accordance with law. Since, the order impugned dated

18.03.2020 does not suffer from any illegality or perversity

warranting interference of this Court under its supervisory

jurisdiction vide Article 227 of the Constitution of India, this writ

petition has no merit.

Resultantly, the writ petition is dismissed.

(MAHENDAR KUMAR GOYAL),J

MADAN/34

Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)