Dr. TIWARI, M.—This is a revision petition under Section 230 of the Rajasthan Tenancy Act, 1955 (in short `the Act') against the impugned order dated 28.3.07 of Revenue Appellate Authority Jaipur by which he allowed the application filed under Order 13 Rule 10 read with Order 41 Rule 27 of the Civil Procedure Code (C.P.C.).

2. The facts, in brief, leading to the revision are that Revenue Appellate Authority Jaipur during pendency of an appeal, filed before him under Section 223 of the Act against the judgment and decree dated 21.9.06 of Sub-Divisional Officer Shahpura allowed in application submitted before him under Order 13 Rule 10 read with Order 41 Rule 27 of the C.P.C. by the impugned order dated 28.3.07, aggrieved against which the present revision petition is filed in this court.

3. I have heard the learned counsel of both the parties.

4. The learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the non-petitioner could have obtained a certified copy himself and presented the same in the court instead of calling paper or copy from the record of other case in the court. The record of one court file cannot be read into the another case file. The court was free to consolidate two different suits if they are of the same nature but court cannot transfer a copy of one document to another case file. Thus, the Revenue Appellate Authority has committed illegality in allowing the application of Order 13 Rule 10 of the CPC as such the impugned order should be set aside.

5. Opposing the contentions of the petitioner, the learned counsel for the non-petitioners contended that the non-petitioners had applied to obtain the certified copy of the jamabandi Svt. 2012 to 2015 of the khasra numbers 386 and 387 located in village Amai (Kotputli); but the Land Record Officer has informed that this document was not available with him. Since this document was put up by the petitioner in another case, a request has been made to the trial court to call for the copy of this document from its own record put up in another case in the same court. There is nothing illegal about it; so the revision should be rejected.

6. I have given thoughtful consideration to the rival contentions, perused the impugned order and gone through the material on record.

7. Perusal of the file shows that the non-petitioners had made an application to Tehsildar for obtaining a certified copy of jamabandi Svt. 2012 to 2015 showing khasra numbers 386 to 390. But Tehsildar informed that this record was not available with him. Thereafter, the non-petitioner also applied to the Land Records Officer Jaipur for obtaining a certified copy of jamabandi Svt. 2012 to 2015 showing khasra No. 386 and 387; but Officer In-Charge of the Land Records section informed that this record was not available with him. In such a situation of non-availability of the jamabandi of Svt. 2012 to 2015, the non-petitioners had no other option but to request the court under Order 13 Rule 10 of the CPC to send for the relevant aforesaid copy from its own record submitted in another case in the same court. Revenue Appellate Authority allowed the application of Order 13 Rule 10 of the CPC in the given circumstances. I do not find any illegality about it. Revenue Appellate Authority has neither exceeded his jurisdiction nor committed any illegality nor committed material irregularity in passing the impugned order. Besides it, the impugned order does not come within the category of `a case decided' as envisaged in section 230 of the Act; as such the revision has no force.

8. In view of the aforesaid discussion, the revision stands dismissed.

Pronounced.

Click Here to Read the rest of this document