ARVIND, MEMBER–The brief facts of this matters are as under :–

(2). This revision petition under section 230 of the Rajasthan Tenancy Act, 1955 was presented before this court against an order of S.D.O.-I, Jaipur dated 21.3.2005. By that order, S.D.O. rejected an application of the petitioner to implead him as a party in a suit instituted by non-petitioners. The member of the suit is 63/04. By this revision, the petitioner requested this court that a suit for division & permanent injunction is pending in the court of S.D.O.-I, Jaipur regarding khasra No. 96 area measuring 113 bighas. The claim of the petitioner is that he purchased a piece of land on 16.3.1980 from co-tenant Munna by a registered deed (share 9/488). This land measured 2 bighas 5 biswas and possession was handed over. In view of the purchase bya registered deed, the petitioner became a share-holder in the alleged land and he is a necessary party in the suit pending with the court of S.D.O., Jaipur. This petition was heard by Honble Member Shri B.K. Meena on 01.4.2005 and this revision was ordered to be admitted for hearing and the stay order, as requested, was also granted ordering that the order of S.D.O.-I, Jaipur dated 21.3.2005 is stayed and further proceedings in the case No. 63/04 were also stayed.

(3). Aggrieved by this admission and the stay order, an application on behalf of non-petitioner Paramjeet Kaur was presented by learned advocate Shri Shiv Singh Chaudhary in this court saying that a caveat had been presented in this court on behalf of non-petitioner Paramjeet Kaur against a possible revision well before i.e., on 24.3.2005 and also a registered letter was issued to the petitioner in this revision informing him about the request of caveat. On this application, this matter came up for hearing before this bench for the request of recall of the order made on 01.4.2005 in the revision petition. When this matter came up for hearing before this bench, the learned advocate of the caveator Shri Shiv Singh Choudhary told us that the learned advocate of the petitioner Shri Atma Ram Sharma is present and he has informed him about the request of withdrawal of the order dated 01.4.2005.

(4). Both the advocates viz. learned Atma Ram Sharma appeared on behalf of the petitioner Shri Samwar Mal and learned Shri Shiv Singh Chaudhary appeared on behalf of the caveator Paramjeet Kaur. Both the learned advocates were heard.

(5). The contents of the learned advocate Shri Shiv Singh Chaudhary on behalf of the caveator Paramjeet Kaur are that a caveat had been presented to the Board on 24.3.2005 and registered notices were issued to the possible petitioner, but despite this fact on record, the revision petition was admitted by the Board on 01.4.2005 and stay was granted against the proceedings of the S.D.O. in the case No. 63/04. This was a mistake on the part of the office of Registrar that the information about caveat was not put up before the Honble bench and the caveator need not suffer for the mistake of the office. Learned Chaudhary also pleaded that there are several decisions of the Honble superiorcourts in whichit has become a settled principle that once a caveat is filed, the caveator is to be heard before any order is passed. He drew my attention to the following reported decisions:-

AIR Rajasthan 1980 page 82

RRD 1985 page 1

AIR Karnataka 1981 page 242

AIR Calcutta 1987 page 492

(6). Replying to the request of the caveator to withdraw the order issued on 01.4.2005, the learned advocate Shri Atmaram Sharma argued as under

(7). That this revision in the Board has been presented against order of the S.D.O.-I, Jaipur passed on 21.3.2005. Revision has been presented u/s 230 of the RT Act. Section 230 of the RT Act authorises the Board to call for the record and examine orders like this in a revision. This is a revision and revision is a right of the court and it is not a right of the litigant. Since S.D.O.-I, Jaipur has committed irregularity and illegality; hence, the Boa

Click Here to Read the rest of this document