The court reaffirmed that procedural technicalities should not undermine substantial justice, emphasizing that minor delays in filing applications can be justified if satisfactorily explained.

ORDER :

1. By way of filing this writ petition, a challenge has been led to the impugned order dated 28.05.2024 passed by the Board of Revenue (for short ‘the Board’), by which the revision petition submitted by the respondents under Section 230 of the Rajasthan Tenancy Act, 1955 (for short ‘the Act of 1955’) has been allowed and the order dated 28.07.2022 passed by the Assistant Collector, Jaipur City-II has been quashed and set-aside.

2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the plaintiff-respondents filed a revenue suit against the petitioners-defendants before the Assistant Collector, Jaipur City-II, wherein, the petitioners were appearing, but on account of illness of the petitioner No.2, they could not appear before the Court below on the fateful day i.e. on 13.04.2022, hence, ex-parte order was passed and decree was drawn on 29.04.2022. Counsel submits that the petitioners were not aware about passing of the ex-parte order and decree and immediately after getting knowledge of the same, an application under Order 9 Rule 13 CPC was submitted on 06.06.2022 for setting aside the ex-parte order and decree. Counsel submits that the reasons for delay were explained in the application itself, but no application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act was submitted with the application under Order 9 Rule 13 CPC. Counsel submits that when the objection was taken in this regard, an application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act for condonation of delay was filed on 27.06.2022. Counsel submits that considering the averments made in the application under Order 9 Rule 13 CPC and application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, the application filed by the petitioner was allowed and the ex-parte order and decree were quashed and set-aside by the Assistant Collector vide order dated 28.07.2022. Counsel submits that aggrieved by the aforesaid order, the respondents preferred an appeal before the Board and the Board has quashed and set-aside the order on a technical count that the application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act was not submitted along with application under Order 9 Rule 13 CPC, instead it was submitted subsequently. Counsel submits that there was no need to file separate application seeking condonation of delay as the reasons were well explained in the application under Order 9 Rule 13 CPC itself, but these facts were overlooked by the Court below and the order dated 29.04.2022 has been quashed and set-aside by the Assistant Collector. Counsel submits that the discretion of the Revisional Court should have been exercised sparingly, but in the instant case, the matter has been decided on its merits. Counsel submits that there was slight delay in filing the application for setting aside the ex-parte order and decree. Counsel submits that the delay was hardly of 6-7 days and the same was well explained.

3. Counsel has placed reliance upon the following judgments passed by the Apex Court:

1.State of M.P. and Another vs. Pradeep Kumar and Another reported in 2000 (7) SCC 372.

2. Bhagmal and Others vs. Kunwar Lal and Ors. reported in 2010 (12) SCC 159.

3. M.K. Prasad vs. P. Arumugam reported in 2001 (6) SCC 176.

4. Counsel submits that in view of the submissions made herein above, the impugned order dated 28.05.2024 passed by the Board be quashed and set-aside.

5. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondents opposed the arguments raised by the counsel for the petitioners and submitted that prior to passing of ex-parte order, the petitioner remained absent on 06.04.2022 and 11.04.2022, that is why, the ex-parte order was drawn on 13.04.2022 and thereafter, ex-parte decree was passed on 29.04.2022. Counsel submits that the respondents, under apprehension of filing appeal before the Appellate Court, filed a caveat and the petitioners might have received copy of the caveat and became aware of the ex-parte order and decree, but they were sleeping over the matter and they have availed two parallel remedies; one of filing a