Mohammad Rafiq, J. - (1.) In this matter no one has been appearing for petitioners for last several dates; on 19.11.2010 no one appeared and on 29.11.2010 also no one appeared for petitioners. When this court issued notice to respondents by order dated 25.08.2010, it directed that operation of order dated 20.05.2010 passed by Board of Revenue shall remain stayed. Petitioner did not even file process fee, notices and extra-sets along with paper book. When respondents came to know about interim order passed by this court, they thereupon approached the court. Matter was heard for purpose of admission.
(2.) Respondents filed a revenue suit before Court of Sub Divisional Officer, Jamwaramgarh under Section 183 of Rajasthan Tenancy Act in year 2003 for eviction of petitioners who were defendants in said suit. Defendants filed an application under Order 7 Rule 11 of CPC on 27.08.2004 asserting that they are in possession of suit land since 1960 and are having electricity and water connections since 1980 and therefore no cause of action arose in favour of plaintiff-respondents to file suit. That application was allowed by learned Sub Divisional Officer vide order dated 20.05.2005 and suit was rejected. However, appeal filed by respondents was rejected by Revenue appellate Authority on 03.10.2005. Respondents thereupon filed an appeal before Revenue Board. The Board by its order dated 20.05.2010 allowed the appeal holding that issues raised by defendants were not such which would fall within purview of Order 7 Rule 11 of CPC. The Board in doing so relied on judgment of Supreme Court in 2007 (1) R.R.T. 36. Learned counsel for respondents in support of his case relied upon judgmnet of Supreme Court in Kamala and Others v. K.T. Eshwara Sa and Others, (2008) 12 SCC 661.
(3.) In my considered view also whether or not defendant-petitioners were in possession of suit land since 1960 or that they are having electricity and water connections since 1980, it could not be said that no cause of action arose in favour of respondents. Matter has simply been remanded for deciding on merits. No interference is called for.;