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
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:-
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.
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.