DIXIT, MEMBER:—This review petition has been filed under Section 229 of the Rajasthan Tenancy Act, 1955, the original order under review was passed in a revision petition Satish Kumar vs. Sitaram.

(2). The brief facts of the case are that on 11.7.1974 a suit was instituted under Section 88, 188 by the applicants and by non- applicant No. 7 to 16 against the non-applicant No. 2 in respect of land in Khasra Nos.

(3). That a reply was filed in respect of the above mentioned civil suit by the non-applicant No. 2 Chiranjilal. Issues were framed on 11.3.1976 and the suit was pending in the court of SDO, Jaipur at the time of the institution of this review petition. Along with that suit a temporary injunction was granted against the defendant Chiranjilal who was bound down by that temporary injunction.

(4). On 19.10.1992 another suit for declaration, partition and permanent injunction was filed by Satish Kumar son of Chiranjilal against his father Chiranjilal in respect of land in khasra Nos. 178, 180, 186, 193 to 205, 207 and 208, 289, 296, 298 to 308, 312 and 315.

(5). Firstly, a temporary injunction was issued and subsequently, an application for appointment of receiver was made in which receiver was appointed on all the lands mentioned in the foregoing para. It may be noted at this stage that khasra numbers 186, 193, 194, 197, 200, 201, 202, 203, 204, 205, 207 and 208 were already the subject of temporary injunction issued on 26.7.1974 against Chiranjilal. That the applicants upon coming to know regarding the order dated 23.7.1994 filed an appeal No. 4/1994 in the court of R.A.A., Jaipur in which vide his decision dated 17.4.1995 the order of appointment of receiver on the entire land was set aside and the order was maintained only in respect of lands which were not the subject of a stay under the temporary injunction dated 26.7.1974.

(6). No appeal or revision was made against the order dated 17.4.1995. However, after this Satish Kumar made an application under Order 1 rule 10 for becoming a party in the original suit, Moti vs. Chiranjilal which was dismissed and has become final. This land was purchased by one Sitaram and after mutations had been attested in his favour, Sitaram filed an appeal No. 232/97 in the court of Revenue Appellate Authority, in which the Revenue Appellate Authority, vacated his order of appointment of receiver in respect of the rest of the land also vide his order dated 7.4.1999.

(7). A revision petition was preferred against the judgment of Revenue Appellate Authority, dated 7.4.1999 in the Board of Revenue and in its decision the Board passed an order-appointing receiver including khasra No. 178, 186, 193 to 197, 206, 208, 315, 200 and 202. Aggrieved by this order/applicants have filed the present review on the grounds that their rights have been seriously affected by the order passed by the Board of Revenue in revision and they were not made a party in the said revision even though they were the party in actual possession and important facts were concealed from the Board which resulted in a complete miscarriage of justice and has resulted in the patent error of appointment of receiver on lands which were subject matter of a different lis.

(8). At the outset, preliminary objection was raised regarding the maintainability of the review petition by the non-applicant on the ground that review petition under Section 229 of the Rajasthan Tenancy Act, 1955 cannot be brought by a person which is not a party in the original petition under review.

(9). Counsel for the non-petitioner stated that clause 1 of section 229 states that:

Power of review by Board and other revenue courts—Subject to the provisions of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (Central Act V of 1908)—

(1) the Board of its own motion or on the application of a party to a suit or proceeding, may review and may rescind, alter or confirm any decree or order made by itself or by any of its members, and

(10). There is no mention of any party other than the party

Click Here to Read the rest of this document