MADAN, J. - (1.) THE petitioners, by way of this writ petition have sought the relief inter-alia to quash and set aside the judgment of the Board of Revenue, Ajmer passed on 14. 6. 1990 (Ann. 6), 11. 10. 1990 (Ann. 7), 17. 9. 1998 (Ann. 11) and 22. 7. 1999 (Ann. 12) and that of Revenue Appellate Authority passed on 26. 12. 1994 (Ann. 10 ). THE petitioners further prayed for restoring judgments dated 30. 3. 84 of the Assistant Collector (Trainee) Kota (Ann. 3), and dated 26. 10. 90 of the Assistant Collector (HQR) Kota (Ann. 8 ).
(2.) THE facts leading to challenge of the impugned orders, referred to above, briefly stated, are that in their Suit No. 83/90 for permanent injunction filed under Sec. 188 of the Rajasthan Tenancy Act, 1955 (for short "the Act") before the Assistant Collector (HQ) Kota the petitioners (Jugal Kishore & Others ( filed an application under Sec. 212 of the Act, for temporary injunction in respect of an agricultural land measuring 9 bighas 13 biswas of Khasra No. 58 situated in village Nottana Tehsil Ladpura (District Kota) inter-alia claiming themselves as recorded Khatedar and their possession over it. On this application for temporary injunction upon considering reply of the respondent Nos. 3 & 4 to the application for temporary injunction and considering their rival claims ad interim temporary injunction was granted on 29. 6. 90 as prayed therein by the petitioners and this ad interim order was made absolute by grant of temporary injunction till final disposal of suit for permanent injunction, by order dated 26. 10. 90 of the Assistant Collector (HQR) Kota (Ann. 8), against which present respondent Nos. 3 and 4 (Ratanlal & Kanhaiyalal) preferred their appeal No. 157/91 before the Revenue Appellate Authority, Kota. It is pertinent to mention that on 18. 12. 90 they (respondent Nos. 3 & 4) also filed an application under Section 144 of the Code of Civil Procedure for restoration of possession of the land in dispute in their favour before the Assistant Collector (HQ) Kota claiming that judgment dated 30. 3. 84 of the Assistant Collector (Trainee) Kota (Ann. 3) whereby in misc. case No. 37/84 on application filed under Section 183a of the Act by Nand Kishore (whose legal heirs are the present petitioners) Ratan Lal and Kanhaiya Lal (respondents Nos. 3 & 4) were directed to be dispossessed from the land in dispute, was set aside by the Revenue Appellate Authority Kota by judgment dated 22. 8. 84 (Ann. 5) in an appeal under Section 223 of the Act inasmuch as it (Ann. 5) was also upheld by the Board of Revenue by judgment dated 14. 6. 90 (Ann. 6) in Revision Petition No. 352/84/ta/kota filed by the present petitioners but the aforesaid application filed by the respondent Nos. 3 & 4 under Sec. 144 CPC was dismissed by the Assistant Collector (HQR) Kota on 21. 1. 91 (Ann. 9 ). The respondent Nos. 3 & 4 preferred an appeal No. 608/90 being aggrieved by grant of temporary injunction in favour of the petitioners, under order dated 26. 10. 90 (Ann. 8) and appeal No. 157/91 against dismissal of their application under Section 144 CPC, under order dated 21. 1. 91 (Ann. 9 ). Both these appeals were allowed by the Revenue Appellate Authority under order dated 26. 12. 1994 (Ann. 10) whereby temporary injunction dated 26. 10. 1990 (Ann. 8) was vacated and while setting aside order dated 21. 1. 91 (Ann. 9), application dated 18. 12. 90 was accepted directing to deliver/restore possession of Khasra No. 58 measuring 9 bighas 13 biswas (land in dispute) in favour of the present respondent Nos. 3 & 4 in accordance with law. However, the present petitioners preferred two revision petitions feeling aggrieved against the judgment dated 26. 12. 94 (Ann. 10) but these revision petitions were dismissed by judgment dated 17. 9. 98 (Ann. 11) of the Board of Revenue, upholding the judgment dated 26. 12. 94 (Ann. 10) of RAA Kota. Review Petition filed by the petitioners were also rejected by the Board of Revenue under judgment dated 22. 7. 99 (Ann. 12 ). Hence, this writ petition, reply to which has been filed by the respondent Nos. 3 and 4, wherein filing of application under Section 183a of the Act by Nandkishore and consequential passing of judgments by the revenue courts below thereon have not only been denied but the contention as to the land in dispute being mortgaged with respondent Nos. 3 and 4 was also strongly denied by contending inter alia that the land in fact was sold by Nandkishore as Rajput (who did not belong to Scheduled Caste) to them; and that the petitioners cannot now be permitted to challenge the orders of the Board of Revenue passed on 14. 6. 90 (Ann. 6) and 11. 10. 90 (Ann. 7) in earlier proceedings initiated under Sec. 183a of the Act because they have attained finality inasmuch as they cannot be challenged in the present proceedings arising out of a subsequent suit under Sec. 188 of the Act, after inordinate delay of nine years. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties at length and carefully perused the memo of writ petition and reply thereto so also accompanying judgments/documents or record. Challenging the judgments dated 22. 8. 84 (Ann. 5) of the Revenue Appellate Authority Kota which stood upheld by judgments dated 14. 6. 90 (Ann. 6) and 11. 10. 90 (Ann. 7) of the Board of Revenue, Shri K. K. Mehrishi learned Senior counsel for the petitioners contended that by aforesaid judgments the revenue courts below have wrongly dismissed application under Section 183-A of the Act merely because it was signed by petitioner Jugal Kishore who was not recorded Khatedar tenant whereas Nandkishore was his father who had not signed it and at the worst, it only amounted to a defect or irregularity in the suit proceedings not affecting the merits or jurisdiction of the revenue court trying it, inasmuch as before the revenue trial Court (Assistant Collector (Trainee) Kota) in suit proceedings under Sec. 183a of the Act, original recorded Khatedar Jugal Kishore though admittedly had not signed the application under Sec. 183a of the Act but appeared as a witness and thus cured that defect ratifying omission on this part as to sign on the application. Therefore, Shri Mehrishi contended that the aforesaid judgments (Ann. 5, 6 & 7) are wholly illegal and deserve to be set aside while judgment dated 30. 3. 84 (Ann. 3) of Assistant Collector (Trainee) Kota allowing application of the petitioner under Section 183a of the Act deserves to be restored.
(3.) ON the other hand, Shri Ganesh Meena appearing for Shri S. N. Pareek, learned Senior Counsel for the respondent Nos. 3 and 4, contended that the petitioners cannot be allowed to challenge the judgments having been passed in a suit proceedings under Sec. 183a of the Act long back in the year 1990 which had attained its finality because these judgments (Ann. 5, 6 & 7) have since never been challenged before this Court and cannot be now permitted to be challenged in this writ petition after inordinate delay and latches that too by way of subsequent and distinct proceedings under Sec. 212 of the Act for grant of Temporary Injunction and under Sec. 144 CPC for restitution of possession in favour of respondent Nos. 3 and 4 over the land in dispute. In my considered view, I find substance in the contention raised by Shri S. N. Pareek, for manifold reasons. Firstly, this writ petition having arisen out of proceedings under Section 212 of the Act for temporary injunction and under Section 144, CPC for restoration of possession to the respondent Nos. 3 and 4, the petitioners cannot be allowed to challenge the validity of the judgments (Anns. 5 to 7) having been passed long back which have since attained its finality since 1990 and therefore, their writ petition for second relief prayed for restoring judgment dated 30. 3. 84 (Ann. 3) of the Assistant Collector (Trainee) Kota, deserves to be dismissed. However, I would like to refer to brief resume to the earlier proceedings of Sections 183a of the Act and the circumstances in which judgments (Ann. 5, 6 & 7) were passed; which have attained finality. ;