JUDGMENT

Sangeet Lodha, J. - This petition is directed against order dated 27.9.18 passed by the Board of Revenue Rajasthan, whereby a revision petition preferred by the petitioner against the order dated 13.8.12 passed by the Sub Divisional Officer (SDO), Chittorgarh, rejecting an application preferred by the petitioner/defendant seeking leave to amend the petition, has been dismissed.

2. The facts relevant are that Ramchandra s/o Nathulal, now represented by his legal heirs respondents no.1 to 6 herein, filed a suit under Section 88/188 of Rajasthan Tenancy Act, 1955 (for short "the Act") for declaration and injunction in respect of the land measuring 2.64 hectare comprising khasra no.1280, 1281, 1286 to 1292, 1294, 1295 and land measuring 0.48 hectare comprising khasra no.1257, 1284, 1285, 1293 of revenue village Chittorgarh, against his brother Shivnarayan and Badrilal, the son of his yet another brother Banshilal, on the strength of Will executed in his favour by his father Nathulal. The defendants Shivnarayan and Badrilal contested the suit by filing a written statement thereto. They also filed the counter claim claiming equal share in the disputed land.

3. During the pendency of the suit, plaintiff Ramchandra filed an application under Section 212 of the Act, seeking temporary injunction, which was dismissed by the revenue court observing that no injunction can be granted against the co-sharers of the land recorded in the revenue record. The defendants no.1 & 2 transferred 0.39 hectare land comprising khasra no.1284, 1285 and 1293 in favour of the petitioner herein by a registered sale deed dated 12.5.04. Thereupon, the plaintiff Ramchandra preferred an application to implead the petitioner herein as defendant in the suit. The application was allowed and the petitioner herein was impleaded as party defendant no.3. The petitioner filed the written statement claiming right and interest in respect of the land transferred to him by the defendant no.1 & 2 Shivnarayan and Badrilal as aforesaid.

4. The plaintiff Ramchandra preferred yet another application seeking injunction against the petitioner not to further alienate the land in which he had acquired right and interest on the strength of the sale deed executed as aforesaid. The application was allowed by the revenue court vide order dated 24.12.07 and the petitioner-defendant was restrained from interfering with the land comprising khasra no.1257, 1280, 1281, 1286 to 1292, 1294, 1295, 1284, 1285 and 1293 and he was restrained from transferring the said land. Thereafter, vide sale deed dated 14.9.10, Badrilal transferred his /rd share in entire land in favour of the petitioner-defendant. Similarly, the legal representatives of deceased Shivnarayan, the respondent no.7/1 to 7/6 also transferred their share in the land in favour of the petitioner-defendant vide registered sale deed dated 11.7.12.

5. In view of the subsequent event in defendants transferring their share in the land, the petitioner preferred an application seeking leave to amend the written statement. The trial court rejected the application preferred vide order dated 13.8.12. Aggrieved thereby, the revision petition preferred by the petitioner has been dismissed by the Board of Revenue. Hence, this petition.

6. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner contended that in the first instance, on defendant no.1 & 2 transferring 0.39 hectare land comprising khasra no.1284, 1285 and 1293, the plaintiff Ramchandra himself filed an application seeking impleadment of the petitioner as party defendant and the suit is being contested by him by filing a written statement thereto. It is submitted that in view of the further transfers made during the pendency of the suit, the shares of the defendants in the original suit stand transferred to the petitioner-defendant and therefore, all necessary facts need to be incorporated in the written statement and thus, the Board of Revenue has seriously erred in affirming the order passe