Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN
Vijay Bishnoi, J.
Harish Chandra – Appellant
Versus
Maksood Ahmed & Ors. – Respondent
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 7730/2022
Decided On : 12-09-2022
Order 1 - Revision Petition - The court held that the proceedings under Section 136 of the Act of 1956 are summary in nature and cannot be treated as a suit, thus the application under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC is not maintainable.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner filed a writ petition aggrieved by the dismissal of their revision petition by the Board of Revenue, which was filed against the order of the Sub-Divisional Officer dismissing their application under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the proceedings under Section 136 of the Act of 1956 are summary in nature and cannot be treated as a suit, thus the application under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC is not maintainable.
Issues: The main issue was the maintainability of the application under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC in relation to the proceedings under Section 136 of the Act of 1956.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the proceedings under Section 136 of the Act of 1956 are summary in nature and cannot be treated as a suit, thus the application under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC is not maintainable.
Final Decision: The writ petition was dismissed as being bereft of force, and the stay petition was also dismissed.
ORDER
1. This writ petition is filed by the petitioner being aggrieved with the order dated 27.04.2022 passed by the Board of Revenue, Ajmer (for short ’the BoR’), whereby the revision petition filed by the petitioner has been dismissed. The revision petition was preferred by the petitioner being aggrieved with the order dated 12.10.2020 passed by the Sub-Divisional Officer, Banswara (for short ’the SDO’), whereby the application filed by the petitioner under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC has been dismissed.
2. Brief facts of the case are that the respondent No.1 has moved an application before the SDO under Section 136 of the Rajasthan Land Revenue Act, 1956 (for short ’the Act of 1956’) with a prayer to make a fresh measurement with respect to the land of Khasra Nos.3089 and 6030/3088 of Village Talwada, Tehsil District Banswara.
3. The said application was opposed by the petitioner and a detailed reply to the same was filed by the petitioner.
4. During the pendency of the application under Section 136 of the Act of 1956, the petitioner has moved another application under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC with a prayer that the application filed by the respondent No.1 under Section 136 of the Act of 1956 may kindly be dismissed.
5. The SDO has rejected the said application while observing that the proceedings under Section 136 of the Act of 1956 cannot be treated as a suit and, therefore, the provision of Order 7 Rule 11 CPC does not apply and, as such, the application filed by the petitioner under the aforesaid provision is not maintainable.
6. Being aggrieved with the same, the petitioner has filed a revision petition before the BoR, which came to be dismissed vide order impugned.
7. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and after perusing the material available on record, this Court is of the opinion that the proceedings under Section 136 of the Act of 1956 are summary in nature and the cannot be treated with the proceeding of a suit. Hence, the BoR as well as the SDO have not committed any illegality in rejecting the application filed by the petitioner under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC as the same being not maintainable.
8. Resultantly, this writ petition being bereft of force is hereby dismissed.
9. Stay petition is also dismissed.
The proceedings under Section 136 of the Act of 1956 are summary in nature and cannot be treated as a suit, thus the application under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC is not maintainable.
The court upheld the Board of Revenue's decision that the petitioner was neither a necessary nor a proper party to the proceedings, affirming the dismissal of his application.
Sections 151 and 152 CPC are limited to clerical corrections and do not allow for substantive reviews of prior judgments.
An order passed on an application under Order IX Rule 5 CPC is not an appealable order under Section 223 of the Rajasthan Tenancy Act, 1955 but can be challenged by filing a revision petition under S....
A party has the right to seek corrections in revenue records, and questions of fact are to be determined by trial courts, not through writ intervention.
The sufficiency of grounds for dismissal under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC and the requirement of serving notice under Section 80 CPC for multiple reliefs sought in a suit.
The court emphasized the limited power of Article 227 of the Constitution of India and the authority of the Sub Divisional Officer to rectify mistakes in land records.
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
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
