Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR
ANOOP KUMAR DHAND
Ram Kishan Adopted Son Kirodi (S/o Kiranta) – Appellant
Versus
Ram Dai W/o Ram Singh (Died) – Respondent
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. initial challenge to previous judgments (Para 1 , 2) |
| 2. petitioner's arguments regarding ex-parte procedures (Para 3) |
| 3. respondent's counterarguments on appeal legality (Para 4) |
| 4. court's analysis on service of summons and trial rights (Para 5 , 6 , 7 , 8 , 10 , 11 , 13 , 14) |
| 5. affirmation of petitioner's challenge on merits (Para 12) |
| 6. quashing previous judgments and remitting for fresh trial (Para 15 , 16) |
JUDGMENT :
ANOOP KUMAR DHAND, J.
For convenience of exposition, this order is divided in the following parts: -
INDEX
(1) The Challenge
(2) Submissions by the petitioner
(3) Submissions by the respondents
(4) Analysis, Discussions and Findings
(5) Conclusion and Direction
The Challenge:-
1. By way of filing this writ petition, a challenge has been led to the impugned judgment and decree dated 21.07.2004 passed by the Revenue Appellate Authority (for short, ‘the RAA’) by which the appeal filed by the petitioner against the ex-parte judgment and decree dated 09.05.2002 passed by the Assistant Collector, Bayana has been rejected, and the aforesaid ex-parte judgment and decree has been upheld.
2. Aggrieved by the judgment dated 21.07.2004 passed by the RAA, the petitioner s
Improper service of notice leading to ex parte proceedings violates natural justice; an appeal can challenge such decrees on merits under statutory rights regardless of procedural lapses.
Judicial review in revenue matters is confined to jurisdictional errors; adequate explanation for delay must be shown for an ex-parte decree to be set aside.
A decree against a deceased tenant remains valid despite procedural objections; heirs inherit tenancy rights jointly without the need for individual notices post-substitution.
A fair hearing is essential in legal proceedings; lack of opportunity renders judgments void and necessitates reconsideration.
Compliance with mandatory provisions of service of notice and the relevance of the 'date of hearing' as a consideration for proceeding ex-parte.
The court reaffirmed that procedural technicalities should not undermine substantial justice, emphasizing that minor delays in filing applications can be justified if satisfactorily explained.
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
