IMPORTANT POINT
The court affirmed that review petitions can be decided on merits without the presence of counsel, and clarified the applicability of Section 42 of the Rajasthan Tenancy Act regarding property ownership.

JUDGMENT :

PANKAJ BHANDARI, J.

1. Appellants have preferred these appeals aggrieved by the order dated 24.11.2021 passed by the learned Single Judge, whereby the review petitions filed by the appellants/review petitioners were dismissed.

2. It is contended by Shri R.K. Mathur, learned Senior Advocate, assisted by Mr. Aditya Kiran Mathur for the appellants that the learned Single Judge allowed S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 8209/2013, filed by Suresh Chand Jain, vide order dated 31.05.2018 without affording opportunity of hearing to the parties. Appellants challenged the order dated 31.05.2018 by filing D.B. Civil Special Appeal (Writ) No. 821/2018, which was decided by the Division Bench of this Court vide order dated 20.07.2018 and the appellants were permitted to approach the learned Single Judge. It was mentioned in the order that if the review petitions are preferred before the learned Single Judge, the learned Single Judge will consider and decide the same after hearing the parties. It is contended that thereafter, the review petitions were filed before the learned Single Judge, however, the same were dismissed without hearing the parties.

3. It is further contended that since no one had put in appearance on behalf of the review petitioners, the court should have dismissed the review petitions in default rather than deciding the same on merits. It is contended that the grounds raised in the review petitions were not mentioned in the order dated 24.11.2021. It is also contended that the land in dispute was sold by Narmada Yadav, who was a member of Scheduled Caste and any sale made by the member of Scheduled Caste was hit by Section 42 of the Rajasthan Tenancy Act, 1955. Reliance in this regard has been placed on Rajasthan Housing Board v. New Pink City Nirman Sahkari Samiti Ltd. (2015) 7 SCC 601.

4. It is contended that the learned Single Judge was not justified in deciding the review petitions on merits in absence of counsel for the review petitioners. Reliance in this regard is placed on Ghanshyam Das Gupta v. Makhan Lal, 2012 SAR (Civil) 785. Reliance is also placed on Roshan Lal v. State of Punjab & Ors. (2020) 20 SCC 742, wherein it was held that the High Court should, while deciding the review petition, advert to the contentions made in the review petition.

5. Our attention has been drawn to Order 41 Rule 17 CPC which is the provision with regard to dismissal of appeal in absence of parties.

6. Mr. Kamlakar Sharma, learned Senior Advocate assisted by Mr. Madhusudan Rajpurohit, appearing for respondent No. 1 Suresh Chand Jain, has vehemently opposed the Special Appeals (Writ). It is contended that initially, the order was passed by the learned Single Judge on 31.05.2018 when the Advocates were on strike and the learned Single Judge was competent to decide the case. Reliance in this regard has been placed on Ramom Services Pvt. Ltd. v. Subhash Kapoor & Ors. (2001) 1 SCC 118, wherein the Apex Court held that when the Advocate engaged by a party is on strike, there is no obligation on the part of the court either to wait or to adjourn the case on that account.

7. It is also contended that the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Mahabir Prasad Singh v. Jacks Aviation Pvt. Ltd. AIR 1999 SC 287 has held that no court is obliged to adjourn a case because of strike call given by any association of advocates or a decision to boycott the courts either in general or any particular court. It is the solemn duty of every court to proceed with the judicial business during court hours. No court should yield to pressure tactics or boycott calls or any kind of browbeating.

8. It is contended that the learned Single Judge has properly dealt with the entire material while allowing the writ petition and has come to the conclusion that Ladu Ram was only a representative of M/s. Fatehchand Estate Pvt. Ltd. and this fact is apparent from perusal of sale deed and the revenue records prepared thereafter. It is further contended that the sale consideration was also