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.

ORDER :

KULDEEP MATHUR, J.

1. By way of filing the present writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner has prayed for the following reliefs:-

“It is, therefore, most respectfully prayed on behalf of the Petitioner that this Writ Petition may kindly be allowed and by an appropriate writ order or direction:

I. The impugned judgment dated 02.07.2025 (Annex.12) passed by the Learned Board of Revenue, Ajmer in Revision No. /Τ.Α./5887/2019/Udaipur titled as "Laxmilal Vs Daulat Ram & Ors." may kindly be quashed and set aside;

II. The Revision preferred by the petitioner i.e. Revision No. /Τ.Α./5887/2019/Udaipur titled as "Laxmilal Vs Daulat Ram & Ors." (Annex.10) may kindly be allowed in toto;

III. Consequently, the impugned order dated 12.09.2019 (Annex.9) passed by the Learned Assistant Collector and Sub- Divisional Officer, Girva in Revenue Case no. 02/2019 may kindly be quashed and set aside and the judgment and decree dated 22.07.2000 (Annex.5) passed by the Learned Assistant Collector and Sub-Divisional Officer, Girva may kindly be affirmed.

IV. Any other appropriate order or direction, which this Hon'ble Court considers just and proper in the facts and circumstances of this case, may kindly be passed in favour of the Petitioner.”

2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that one Ambalal who is father of respondents, filed suit against the present petitioner and others before the learned SDO, Girva under Section 183 of the Rajasthan Tenancy Act, 1955. The suit filed by the Ambalal came to be decided ex-parte on 20.11.1995 and a decree of eviction was passed accordingly.

3. Learned counsel submitted that an application under Order 9 Rule 13 CPC was filed by the petitioner before the Assistant Collector, Girva however, the same came to be rejected vide order dated 20.05.1997. Thereupon, petitioner preferred an appeal before the learned RAA which came to be allowed vide judgment dated 01.07.1997 and the ex-parte judgment and decree dated 20.11.1995 was set aside and the matter was remanded back to the Assistant Collector, Girva for hearing the matter afresh.

4. Learned counsel submitted that when the matter was heard afresh, the respondents- original plaintiff(s) failed to appear before the Court and the Court of Assistant Collector, Girva vide judgment and decree dated 22.07.2020 dismissed the suit filed by the respondents- original plaintiff(s). The respondents- original plaintiff(s) after an inordinate delay of over ten years, preferred an application under Order 9 Rule 13 of CPC along with an application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act on the ground that respondents- original plaintiff(s) were unaware of the proceedings of the case been remanded back to be decided a fresh and, therefore, they could not appear before the Court of Assistant Collector, Girva.

5. The Court of Assistant Collector, Girva after hearing the parties by an order dated 12.09.2019 was pleased to allow the application under Order 9 Rule 13 of CPC and application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act. Consequently, a revision petition under Section 230 of the Rajasthan Tenancy Act was filed by the petitioner before the learned Board of Revenue, Ajmer against the order dated 12.09.2019 which came to be rejected vide order dated 02.07.2025.

6. Learned counsel submitted that the learned Board of Revenue and the learned Court of Assistant Collector, Girva in the impugned orders have failed to consider that no satisfactory explanation for set asiding the judgment and decree dated 22.07.2000 was given by the respondent to condone the inordinate and unexplained delay of over ten years. He submitted that once the matter was remanded by