SHEOJI Vs. BADRI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) INSTANT petitions have been filed assailing the preliminary decree final decree passed by the Court of Assistant Collector, Keshoraipatan dt.20.11.1995 02.02.1996 which came to be affirmed on the appeals preferred by the petitioner before the Revenue Appellate Authority and Board of Revenue primarily on the premise that the appeals were preferred after more than 11 years by the petitioner who was party to the proceedings and since sufficient cause was not shown by the petitioner in the application seeking condonation of delay filed U/s 5 of the Limitation Act, on its rejection the appeals preferred by the petitioner became incompetent and accordingly rejected.

(2.) SUIT for partition and declaration came to be filed U/s 53, 88 188 of the Rajasthan Tenancy Act in which admittedly the petitioner was party to the proceedings and preliminary decree was passed by the Court of Assistant Collector on 20.11.1995 and after affording opportunity to the parties final decree also came to be passed on 02.02.1996 and admittedly appeals were preferred by the petitioner after almost more than 11 years before the revenue appellate authority along with application seeking condonation of delay U/s 5 of the Limitation Act and the only reason disclosed in the application seeking condonation of delay was that he was not aware of the preliminary final decree being passed by the revenue courts despite the fact that he was party to the proceedings and presumption would be drawn of being aware of the preliminary final decree being passed by the learned revenue court and since it was not considered to be reasonable explanation the application filed by the petitioner U/s 5 of the Limitation Act came to be rejected vide order dt.10.06.2008, as a consequence whereof the appeals preferred by the petitioner became incompetent and accordingly rejected and the second appeal preferred before the Board of Revenue against the two orders separately, the Board of Revenue also affirmed the order of Revenue Appellate Authority while rejecting the appeals preferred by common order dt.03.05.2010.

(3.) CONSEQUENTLY, the petitions fail and are hereby dismissed. No costs.