Failure to frame proper issues after considering the averments in the plaint and the written statements can lead to a decision being remanded for a fresh decision.

JUDGMENT :

Vijay Bishnoi, J.

1. This writ petition has been filed by the petitioner-plaintiff being aggrieved with the judgment dated 23.03.2022 (Annexure-14) passed by the Board of Revenue for Rajasthan, Ajmer (hereinafter to be referred as 'the Board of Revenue') in the second appeal filed by the respective respondent-defendants under Section 224 of the Rajasthan Tenancy Act, 1955 (hereinafter to be referred as 'the Act of 1955').

2. Brief facts of the case are that the petitioner-plaintiff and his brother respondent No. 5 filed a revenue suit for declaration and permanent injunction under Sections 88, 92A and 188 of the Act of 1955 before the respondent No. 3-Sub Divisional Officer, Sojat, District Pali (hereinafter to be referred as 'the SDO concerned') with a pryer to declare them as khatedars of the agriculture land situated in village Khardi District Pali, description of which is provided in the revenue suit. The respective respondent-defendants filed their written statements to the plaint and raise certain additional pleas regarding their khatedari rights over the land in question on account of adverse possession etc. It appears that the revenue suit was filed in the year 1992, however, the SDO concerned framed only two issues including the issue of relief on 21.12.1994 but did not frame any issue in respect of the additional pleas raised by the respective respondent-defendants.

3. The trial in that revenue suit went on, however, in the year 2003, the respective respondent-defendants moved an application with a prayer to frame issues after taking into consideration the averments of the plaint as well as the written statements. The SDO concerned rejected the said application and proceed with the revenue suit and ultimately decreed the suit in favour of the petitioner-plaintiff vide judgment dated 26.05.2004 (Annexure-10).

4. Being aggrieved with the judgment dated 26.05.2004 (Annexure-10) passed by the SDO concerned, the respective respondent-defendants preferred an appeal before the respondent No. 2-Revenue Appellate Authority, Pali, however, the said appeal came to be dismissed vide judgment dated 03.09.2004 (Annexure-12). Being aggrieved with the same, the respective respondent-defendants preferred the second appeal before the Board of Revenue, which came to be allowed vide impugned judgment dated 23.03.2022 (Annexure-14). Hence, this writ petition has been filed.

5. The Board of Revenue in the impugned judgment has observed that the SDO concerned has framed issues while taking into consideration only the averments of the plaint and has not framed any issue while taking into consideration the additional pleas raised by the respective respondent-defendants in their written statements. The Board of Revenue has held that the SDO concerned has committed error in not framing proper issues after taking into consideration the averments made in the plaint filed by the petitioner-plaintiff as well as the written statements filed by the respective respondent-defendants, therefore, the matter requires to be remanded to the concerned SDO for a fresh decision after framing proper issues. After observing this, the Board of Revenue has passed the impugned judgment while setting aside the judgments passed by the SDO concerned and Revenue Appellate Authority, Pali and remanded the matter.

6. Learned counsel for the petitioner-plaintiff has argued that the Board of Revenue has grossly erred in passing the impugned judgment. It is submitted that the application for framing additional issues was filed by the respective respondent-defendants after a delay of around 10 years and even in that application they have not suggested to frame particular issues. It is submitted that in view of the above facts and circumstances of the case, the Board of Revenue has illegally passed the impugned judgment and erred in remanding the matter to the SDO concerned for a fresh adjudication of the suit after framing issues as per the averements raised in the plai