Bharat Singh vs Bhanwar Singh
2022 Latest Caselaw 8707 Raj

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 7183/2022

1. Bharat Singh S/o Shri Sawai Singh, Aged About 46 Years, By Caste Rajput, Resident Of Bhainsli, Tehsil Rajgarh, District Churu (Rajasthan).

2. Nandu Singh S/o Shri Sawai Singh, Aged About 44 Years, By Caste Rajput, Resident Of Bhainsli, Tehsil Rajgarh, District Churu (Rajasthan).

3. Prahlad Singh S/o Shri Sawai Singh, Aged About 41 Years, By Caste Rajput, Resident Of Bhainsli, Tehsil Rajgarh, District Churu (Rajasthan).

4. Ugam Kanwar D/o Shri Sawai Singh, Aged About 50 Years, By Caste Rajput, Resident Of Bhainsli, Tehsil Rajgarh, District Churu (Rajasthan).

5. Dwarka D/o Shri Sawai Singh, Aged About 48 Years, By Caste Rajput, Resident Of Bhainsli, Tehsil Rajgarh, District Churu (Rajasthan).

6. Kunan Kanwar, Aged About 45 Years, By Caste Rajput, Resident Of Bhainsli, Tehsil Rajgarh, District Churu (Rajasthan).

----Petitioners Versus

1. Bhanwar Singh S/o Shri Nanu Singh, By Caste Rajput, Resident Of Bhainsli, Tehsil Rajgarh, District Churu (Rajasthan).

2. Jaipal Singh S/o Shri Nanu Singh, By Caste Rajput, Resident Of Bhainsli, Tehsil Rajgarh, District Churu (Rajasthan).

3. Prabhu Singh S/o Shri Nanu Singh, By Caste Rajput, Resident Of Bhainsli, Tehsil Rajgarh, District Churu (Rajasthan).

4. Sajjan Kanwar, By Caste Rajput, Resident Of Bhainsli, Tehsil Rajgarh, District Churu (Rajasthan).

5. The State Of Rajasthan, Through Tehsildar (Revenue), Rajgarh, District Churu (Rajasthan).

                                                              ----Respondents





                                          (2 of 4)                   [CW-7183/2022]



For Petitioner(s)        :     Mr. Trilok Joshi



            HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIJAY BISHNOI

                         Judgment / Order

05/07/2022

This writ petition has been filed by the petitioners being

aggrieved with the judgment dated 25.04.2022 passed by the

Board of Revenue for Rajasthan, Ajmer, whereby the appeal

preferred by the petitioners under Section 224 of the Rajasthan

Tenancy Act has been allowed and judgments and decrees dated

29.01.2019 and 22.07.2019 passed by the Sub-Divisional Officer,

Rajgarh (hereinafter to be referred as 'the trial court') and the

judgment dated 29.11.2019 passed by the Land Settlement

Officer cum Revenue Appellate Authority, Bikaner (hereinafter to

be referred as the first appellate court) have been quashed and

set aside while remitting the matter to the trail court to decide the

same afresh after providing opportunity to the parties concerned

to produce their evidence and to pass judgment on the plaint as

well as on the counter claim as per the issues framed and if the

plaintiffs as well as the defendants have failed to prove their case,

further proceedings be initiated in accordance with the Rajasthan

Tenancy (Revenue Board) Rules, 1955.

The brief facts of the case are that the petitioner-plaintiffs

have filed a revenue suit for partition in the trial court wherein,

the trial court had passed the preliminary decree on 29.01.2019

and later on, had passed the final decree on 22.07.2019 in favour

of the petitioner-plaintiffs. Being aggrieved with the same,

respondent-defendants preferred an appeal before the first

(3 of 4) [CW-7183/2022]

appellate court), wherein the first appellate court while allowing

the appeal remitted the matter to the trial court with the certain

directions. Being aggrieved with the same, the petitioner-plaintiffs

have preferred the second appeal before the Board of Revenue for

Rajasthan, Ajmer (hereinafter to be referred as the second

appellate court) wherein the second appellant court has passed

the impugned judgment.

While assailing the impugned judgment passed by the

second appellate court, learned counsel for the petitioner-plaintiffs

has submitted that the second appellate court has grossly erred in

setting aside the decrees passed by the trial court as well as the

judgments passed by the first appellate court.

It is argued that the second appellate court has failed to take

into consideration the point involved in the case and without

application of mind has passed the impugned judgment.

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner-plaintiffs and

perused the material available on record as well as the impugned

judgment passed by the second appellate court.

The second appellate court has taken into consideration the

fact that the trial court, without taking into consideration the

evidence of any of the parties, passed the preliminary decree. It is

also noticed by the second appellate court that the respondent-

defendants were not provided any opportunity to cross-examine

those witnesses whose affidavits were filed on behalf of the

petitioner-plaintiffs. The second appellate court has also noticed

that the documents produced on behalf of the petitioner-plaintiffs

were not even marked as exhibits, but the said documents were

illegally taken into consideration by the trial court and passed the

judgment on the basis of it. The second appellate court has

(4 of 4) [CW-7183/2022]

further observed that even the counter claim is not decided by the

trial court.

Taking into consideration the above technical as well as

material flaws in the procedure, the second appellate court has

passed the impugned judgment.

Learned counsel for the petitioner-plaintiffs has failed to

convince this Court that the procedure provided under the Civil

Procedure Code for disposal of the suit/plaint has been followed by

the trial court.

In such circumstances when the trial court has not followed

the procedure as laid down under the CPC for disposal of the

revenue suit filed on behalf of the petitioner-plaintiffs, I do not

find any illegality in the impugned judgement passed by the

second appellate court.

Hence, this writ petition is bereft of force and hereby

dismissed.

(VIJAY BISHNOI),J

58-AjaySingh/-

Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)