IMPORTANT POINT
If an order has been passed by concealment of material facts, then it is duty of Court to correct facts if brought into its notice.

ORDER

The issue involved in this petition is “Whether an aggrieved person can challenge the impugned judgment before the higher appellate Court by seeking leave to file appeal wherein he was not a party? If the said judgment and decree is obtained by a person by misrepresentation and on the basis of concealment or incorrect facts.” It is in the above background the issue involved in this petition is required to be considered.

2. Since common question of law and facts are involved in these petitions, hence with the consent of counsel for the parties, all these matters are taken up for final disposal and are being decided by this common order.

3. By way of filing these petitions, the petitioners are aggrieved by the impugned order dated 11.10.2021 passed by the Revenue Appellate Authority, Alwar (for short ‘RAA’) by which the appeal filed by the respondents under Section 96 of the Code of Civil Procedure (for short ‘CPC’) and under Section 5 of The Limitation Act, 1963 have been allowed and the delay in filing the appeal has been condoned. Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied by the order dated 11.10.2021, the petitioners submitted revision petitions before the Board of Revenue (for short ‘the Board’) who vide impugned order dated 28.10.2022 has rejected the same. Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied by both the orders dated 11.10.2021 passed by the RAA and 28.10.2022 passed by the Board of Revenue, the present petitions have been filed.

4. For convenience, the facts mentioned in SB Civil Writ petition No.18425/2022 has been taken into consideration.

5. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioners filed a suit for declaration, injunction and correction of entries before the Court of Assistant Collector, Behror, Alwar which was decreed vide judgment and decree dated 28.11.2005 and the petitioners were declared as Khatedars of the land in question. Thereafter, the judgment and degree passed by the Assistant Collector, Behror, Alwar was executed and the mutation of the land in question was opened in favour of the petitioners. Counsel submits that after passing of the aforesaid decree and judgment dated 28.11.2005, the respondent No.6 – Magan Singh filed a suit for declaration, injunction and correction of the record with regard to the same property in question before the Court of Assistant Collector, Behror, Alwar wherein the other respondents were impleaded as proforma respondent. Counsel submits that the petitioners were also impleaded as defendant in the said suit. However, the said suit was dismissed for want of prosecution on 07.02.2019 and till date no application under Order 9 Rule 9 CPC was submitted by the petitioner for recalling / setting aside the order dated 07.02.2018. Counsel submits that after a lapse of around eight years, the respondents submitted an appeal under Section 96 CPC against the judgment and decree dated 28.11.2005 before the RAA along with an application under Section 96 CPC and application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963 seeking condonation of delay in filing the appeal against the judgment and decree dated 28.11.2005. Counsel submits that the learned RAA allowed both the appeal under Section 96 CPC and the application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act vide impugned order dated 11.10.2021, overlooking the material aspect that with regard to the same controversy, the suit filed by the respondent has already been dismissed in default on 07.02.2018. Counsel submits that the decree and judgment dated 28.11.2005 has already been executed and the mutation of the land in question has already been entered into the names of the petitioners. Hence, under these circumstances, the impugned order passed by the RAA was not maintainable in the eye of law. Counsel submits that all these material aspects were overlooked by the Revisional Authority (Board of Revenue), while rejecting the revision petition filed by the petitioners. Counsel further submits that the petitioners filed the afo