SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2021 Supreme(Raj) 389

IN THE HIGH COURT OF RAJASTHAN AT JAIPUR BENCH
Goverdhan Bardhar, J.
Jitendra Singh & Ors. - Appellants
Versus
Nalneesh & Ors. - Respondents
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 2077/2021
Decided on : 18-02-2021

Advocates appeared:
Mr. Nawal Singh Sikarwar, for the Appellant; Mr. Gajendra Singh Rathore, for the Respondent.

A revision petition before the Board of Revenue is not maintainable when an appeal provision is available. An aggrieved party can either move the appellate court or approach the same court which passed the order by way of an application under Order 39 Rule 3A CPC if the order is ex-parte.

Headnote:

Order 39 Rule 3 and 3A CPC - These provisions allow an aggrieved party to challenge an ex-parte order of temporary injunction. Order 43 Rule 1 CPC - This provision allows an appeal against any interim order passed by a Civil Court. Section 10 CPC - This provision deals with the stay of a suit where a similar suit has been filed previously. The court refers to these provisions and holds that a revision petition before the Board of Revenue is not maintainable when an appeal provision is available.

Fact of the Case:

The petitioner filed a writ petition against the order passed by the Board of Revenue, Rajasthan, staying the operation of the order passed by the Assistant Collector. The petitioner argues that the Board of Revenue does not have jurisdiction to entertain the revision petition against the ex-parte ad-interim stay order. The petitioner cites the case of Vidya Devi and Others vs. Chautha and Others in support of their argument.

Finding of the Court:

The court examines the impugned order passed by the Board of Revenue and the material placed before it. It notes that the suit is pending before the trial court and an ex-parte ad-interim stay order has been passed. The application for temporary injunction is also pending before the trial court. The court refers to the case of Vidya Devi and Others and holds that when an appeal provision is available, a revision petition before the Board of Revenue would not be maintainable. The court sets aside the impugned order and directs the Board of Revenue to decide the revision petition in accordance with law within fifteen days.

Ratio Decidendi: A revision petition before the Board of Revenue is not maintainable when an appeal provision is available. An aggrieved party can either move the appellate court or approach the same court which passed the order by way of an application under Order 39 Rule 3A CPC if the order is ex-parte. The lack of jurisdiction of the Board of Revenue in a revision petition owing to the availability of an appeal against the impugned order is a valid ground for setting aside the order.

Result: The impugned order passed by the Board of Revenue is set aside and the Board of Revenue is directed to decide the revision petition in accordance with law within fifteen days.

JUDGMENT

1. The instant writ petition has been filed by the petitioner against the order dated 13.01.2021 passed by the Board of Revenue, Rajasthan, Ajmer, in Revision No. 2021/52 (Nalneesh and Others vs. Jitendra Singh and Others). The Board of Revenue by the said order has stayed the operation of the order dated 17.12.2020 passed by the Assistant Collector, Alwar.

2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that vide order dated 17.12.2020, the Assistant Collector, Alwar, passed an order in the suit wherein an ex-parte ad interim stay order was granted and the parties were directed to maintain status quo in respect of revenue record as well as the possession of the property in question. The defendants No. 1 and 3 to 10 in spite appearing before the trial Court, filed the aforementioned revision petition before the Board of Revenue, whereas the Board of Revenue does not have jurisdiction to entertain the revision petition against the ex-parte ad-interim stay order passed during the pendency of the suit till the next date fixed for appearance of the other party. Learned counsel further submits that such kind of order can be challenged under Order 39 Rule 3 and 3A CPC by the aggrieved party. The Board of Revenue erroneously passed the impugned order dated 13.01.2021.In support of his submissions, learned counsel has placed reliance in the case of Vidya Devi and Others vs. Chautha and Others, reported in 2016 (1) WLN 248.

3. Perused the impugned order passed by the Board of Revenue and the material placed before the Court.

4. The suit is pending before the trial Court and the trial Court passed an ex-parte ad-interim stay order. The application filed by the plaintiff for temporary injunction is pending before the trial Court for final adjudication.

5. In the case of Vidya Devi and Others (supra), the Coordinate Bench of this Court in Para No.5 of the judgment held ad- infra:-

    "5. It is well settled that when a provision for an appeal is available, as in the instant case under Section 225 of the 1995 Act to the Revenue Appellate Authority against an order including an interim one passed by the Sub Divisional Officer, a revision petition before the Board would not be maintainable. Reference in this regard can be had to the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of A. Venkatasubbiah Naidu Vs. S. Challappan and Others, AIR 2000 SC 3032, wherein it has been held that any interim order passed by a Civil Court is appealable in terms of Order 43 Rule 1 CPC. A party aggrieved of an ad-interim injunction can either move the appellate court or approach the same court which has passed the same by way of an application under Order 39 Rule 3A CPC if the order be an ex-parte one. In fact the Board itself in its impugned order has held that the revision petition laid before it against an ad-interim order was not maintainable. It is true that the defendant had also moved an application under Section 10 CPC for the reason that prior to laying of the partition suit by the plaintiff, one of the co-khatedar had earlier also filed a similar suit. In the circumstances the Board could indeed have required the trial court to dispose the said application within a short time but could not have interfered with the ad interim order of status quo passed by the trial court for reason of its lack of jurisdiction in a revision owing to availability of an appeal against the impugned order."

6. In view of above, the impugned order dated 13.01.2021 passed by the Board of Revenue in revision petition No. 2021/52 is set aside and the Board of Revenue is directed to decide the aforementioned revision petition in accordance with law within a period of fifteen days from the date of production of a certified copy of this order.

7. The writ petition stands disposed of accordingly.

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top