Revenue courts have inherent powers under Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure to impose conditions, such as cash security, to safeguard the rights of parties, even if the provisions of a specific statute are not applicable.

1. This writ petition has been filed against the order of the Board of Revenue for Rajasthan at Ajmer dated June 13, 197', confirming the order passed by the Assistant Collector, Rajgarh, District Alwar, directing the defendant petitioner Birji to deposit a sum of Rs. 2,000/- per year in the Tehsil by way of security. It appears that Smt. Girraji and Smt. Ashrafi daughters of Chhotelal and Rajendra son of Smt. Girraji filed a suit for possession of agricultural land against Birji, who is alleged to be the adopted son of Chhotelal, deceased father of the two plaintiffs Girraji and Ashrafi. There appears to be some dispute about the adoption of Birji by Chhotelal deceased which gave rise to litigation's between the parties in the civil court as well as in the revenue court. In the plaint, the plaintiffs have also made an alternative prayer for partition and possession of their separate share in the property in dispute. The plaintiffs also submitted an application under Section 212 of the Rajasthan Tenancy Act, 1955 (hereinafter referred to as `the Act') before the Assistant Collector, but the Assistant Collector felt that it would not be proper to grant either a temporary injunction in favour of the plaintiffs or to appoint a receiver, as Birji was in physical possession of the agricultural land in dispute. However, he directed that Birji should deposit a sum of Rs. 2,000/- per year in two instalments in the Tehsil until the decision of the suit and that at the time of the final decision of the suit, the trial court would be entitled to direct the payment of the amount so deposited in the court to the persons entitled thereto. This other was upheld in appeal by the Revenue Appellate Authority, Alwar and the Board of Revenue for Rajasthan by its order dated June 13, 1977 refused to interfere in revision. A review petition filed before the Board of Revenue also failed. Hence, the petitioner has filed this writ petition before us.

2. The submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that the order passed by the learned Assistant Collector in the present case directing the petitioner to deposit a cash security year after year is the nature of an order under section 212(2) of the Act and that such an order could only be passed after the Assistant Collector would have come to the conclusion that a receiver should be appointed or a temporary injunction should be granted, in accordance with the provisions of sub-section (I) of section 212 of the Act. We have perused the order passed by the learned Assistant Collector in the present case and are satisfied that the contention of the learned counsel is not well founded. The Assistant Collector clearly held that he was not inclined either to grant a temporary injunction, in the facts and circumstances of the case, nor he thought it fit to pass an order appointing receiver under sub-section (2) of Section 212 of the Act. He also did not purport to pass an order under sub-section (2) of Section 212 of the Act, yet we find that the order passed by the learned Assistant Collector in the present case is eminently just and proper in the circumstances of the case in as much as the trial court was duty bound to safe-guard the rights of the parties even if it considered that no temporary injunction should be granted and there was no proper case for appointment of a receiver. The plaintiffs had prima facie some right in the land in dispute, being the daughters of deceased Chhotelal, who was admittedly the joint khatedar tenant of the land in dispute before his death. In order to safe-guard the rights of the plaintiffs in case a decree for partition and separate possession of their share may be ultimately pissed in the suit, the trial court thought it fit to direct the petitioner to furnish a cash security in the sum of Rs. 2000/-. We may observe that apart from Section 212 of the Act, the revenue court had inherent powers under section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure, which has b