SHETHNA, J. - (1.) THE respondent nos. 4 and 5 filed suit against the petitioners for partision of their agricultural land before the court of Addl. Collector and S. D. O. , Jodhpur. As many as 7 issues were framed by him in the suit. Issue no. 6 was decided as a preliminary issue against the plaintiffs- present respondent Nos. 4 and 5 and consequently the suit was dismissed by judgment and decree dated 20. 7. 1999. It was challenged by the respondent nos. 4 and 5 in appeal before the Revenue Appellate Authority, Jodhpur. THE period of limitation for filing the appeal was 60 days, meaning thereby, the last date was 19. 9. 1999. However, the appeal was filed within time i. e. on 10. 8. 1999. It must be stated that in appeal only certified copy of the judgment was filed, but not the decree.
(2.) BEFORE the appellate court, the petitioners raised objection about the maintainability of appeal on the ground that it was time barred inasmuch as certified copy of the decree was not filed alongwith the appeal and the same was filed very late i. e. on 16. 11. 1999 though it was ready for delivery on 10. 8. 1999. This objection was over-ruled by the Revenue Appellate Authority and it was held that even if it was filed late then also the delay in filing the same was required to be condoned. Against this decision arrived at by the Revenue Appellate Authority at Annex. 3 the petitioners preferred revision petition before the Board of Revenue which was also dismissed on 19. 6. 2000 (Annex. 4 ). Hence, this petition. Learned counsel Shri Acharya for the petitioners vehemently submitted that the appeal filed by the present respondent nos. 4 and 5 before the appellate authority was not maintainable as it was filed without certified copy of the decree. He also submitted that mere production of certified copy of the decree in appeal after a long time would not be sufficient to condone the delay in filing the appeal late. In support of his submission, Mr. Acharya has tried to rely upon my own judgment in case of State of Rajasthan vs. Madan Gopal and others (1 ). I fail to understand that how the judgment in Madan Gopal's case (supra) has any application to the facts of the present case. In Madan Gopal's case (supra) the DIG (Stamps) rejected the reference by his order dated 18. 3. 1995. The period of limitation for filing revision petition was 90 days, therefore, the revision was required to be filed on or before 17. 6. 1995. Initially, the State accepted the order of rejection of reference passed by the DIG (Stamps), but lateron after expiry of period of limitation it changed its mind and for the first time on 11. 8. 95 it appointed the officer-in-charge to prosecute the matter further and only on 17. 8. 1995 the officer-in-charge applied for the certified copy of the order passed by the DIG (Stamps) on 18. 3. 1995 i. e. much after the expiry of period of limitation for filing revision petition. On these facts, relying upon two Supreme Court judgments; (i) Ajit Singh Thakur Singh and another vs. State of Gujarat (2) and (ii) P. K. Ramchandran vs. State of Kerala & Anr. (3), it was held that the revision petition was rightly rejected by the Board of Revenue on the ground of limitation. Coming to the facts of this case, it is clear that the certified copy of both the judgment and decree was applied by the respondent nos. 4 and 5 well in time and in fact the certified copy of the judgment passed by the trial court was already filed alongwith the appeal well in time i. e. within the period of limitation. Infact, it was because of delay on the part of the trial court the respondent nos. 4 and 5 could not get the certified copy of the decree within along with the judgment. It is true that the certified copy of the decree was prepared on 10. 8. 1999, but merely because it was filed late in appeal after the period of three months or so would not be sufficient ground to throw out the appeal on technical ground like limitation. Having gone through the impugned orders at Annex. 3 and 4 passed by the Revenue Appellate Authority respectively it is clear that the courts below have not committed any error in passing the same.
(3.) IN view of the above discussion, I do not see any substance or merit in this petition and accordingly it fails and is hereby dismissed. .;