RAJENDRA SINGH Vs. RATAN
LAWS(RAJ)-1952-8-4
HIGH COURT OF RAJASTHAN
Decided on August 12,1952

RAJENDRA SINGH Appellant
VERSUS
RATAN Respondents


Cited Judgements :-

SITARAM VS. HARIPRASAD [LAWS(RAJ)-1955-5-1] [REFERRED TO]


JUDGEMENT

H. D. Ujjwal - (1.)THIS is a second appeal against the appellate order of the Additional Commissioner Alwar dated 2. 11. 1951 and arises in a suit filed for recovery of rent.
(2.)THE plaintiff had filed several suits for recovery of rent due from the defendants as tenants of this land. After filing of the suits the appellant filed an application in the trial court for attachment of the produce of the land held by the tenants. THE trial court at first ordered for attachment of the produce but later, on an objection on behalf of the defendants, cancelled the previous order on the ground that there was no provision in the Rajasthan Revenue Courts (Procedure and Jurisdiction) Act 1951 for attachment before judgment similar to Orders 38 and 39 of the C. P. C. Against this order the plaintiff filed an appeal in the Court of the Additional Commissioner Alwar. THE Additional Commissioner also has held that there is no provision in the Rajasthan Revenue Courts Act for attachment before judgment and there was no discretionary power vested in the Revenue Courts to pass an order for attachment before judgment.
The only point urged by the counsel for the appellant is that both the lower courts have taken wrong view of the law in holding that the Revenue Courts have no power under the Rajasthan Revenue Courts Act to order attachment before judgment. Rule 65 of the rules made under the Rajasthan Revenue Courts (Procedure and Jurisdiction) Act clearly says that nothing in these rules shall be deemed to limit or otherwise effect the inherent power of the court to make such order as may be necessary for the ends of justice or to prevent abuse of the process of the court. This provision was similar to the one contained in sec. 151 C. P. C. Under this rule the revenue courts have got inherent powers to make such order as may be necessary for the ends of justice or to prevent abuse of the process of the court. These inherent powers are to be used in cases where no provision of law exists but where it is considered necessary to do so for the ends of justice or to prevent abuse of the process of the court. Therefore even though provisions similar to orders 38 and 39 of the C. P. C. are not contained in the Revenue Courts Act the revenue courts have those powers under rule 65.

I have no hesitation in agreeing with the view of the law propounded by the counsel for the appellant and in holding that the revenue courts also have inherent powers to order attachment before judgment or to issue any temporary injunction if the court considers it necessary for the ends of justice or to prevent the abuse of the process of the court.

This, however, does not mean that the order given by the S. D. O. in this case should be set aside. These powers are to be sparingly used, only in cases where the court thinks that a party will be deprived of his rights if it did not give the order required. The appeal in the present case has become infructuous and is hereby dismissed with the above observation regarding the power of the revenue courts. .



Click here to view full judgement.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.