- (1.) By filing this writ petition, the petitioner has challenged the impugned judgment dated 29.3.2010 (Annex. 1) and Judgment and decree dated 3.12.2009 (Annex. 2) passed by the learned Board of Revenue for Rajasthan, Ajmer and also prayed that the matter to remanded to the Board of Revenue for Rajasthan, Ajmer for fresh disposal after giving proper opportunity to him.
(2.) Brief facts of the case are that initially a suit for declaration and permanent injunction was filed by the petitioner against one Mr. Badri father of respondents No.1 to 3 u/Ss. 88 and 188 of the Rajasthan Tenancy Act, 1955 (for short 'the Act of 1955') before the Sub Divisional Officer, Lalsot District Dausa with the averments that the plaintiff having possession of 10 bigha land of khasra No. 192 village Digo Tehsil Lalsot after purchase in Sanvat 2032 from respondent Badri but the land was not transferred in the name of plaintiff therefore, denying and demanding extra money by Badri but with the interference of the villagers, the sale was accepted by the respondent Badri but the registry was not executed and he has gone from the village, not came back. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the suit filed by the petitioner before the SDO, was dismissed vide judgment dated 21.10.2003. Against the judgment dated 21.10.2003, the petitioner filed an appeal before the Settlement Officer-cum-Revenue Appellate Authority, Jaipur, which was allowed and the suit was decreed vide judgment dated 2.7.2005. He submits that thereafter, an application under Order 41 Rule 21 CPC was filed by the respondents No. 1 and 2 for setting aside the ex-parte judgment dated 2.7.2005 on the ground that the appeal was decided against the respondent Badri who had died on 26.4.2001 even before institution of the suit in the trial Court. The application was allowed and set-aside the judgment dated 2.7.2005 by the Revenue Appellate Authority and the appeal was again posted for hearing to give proper opportunity of hearing to the respondents No. 1 to 3. After hearing both the parties, the appeal filed by the petitioner was again allowed and the suit was decreed vide judgment dated 25.4.2008 and the petitioner declared khatedar tenant of the disputed land as well as injunction passed against the respondents No. 1 to 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that against the judgment dated 25.4.2008, an appeal was filed by the respondents No. 1 to 3, which has been allowed by the Board ex-parte being no instruction pleaded by the counsel for the -petitioner respondent before the Board and the application filed by the petitioner under Order 41 Rule 21 CPC for setting aside the ex-parte judgment dated 3.12.2009 on the ground that no notices were issued the petitioner after no instruction pleaded by the counsel as well as no information in respect of hearing of the matter provided by his counsel, dismissed vide order dated 29.3.2010. He submits that both the judgments which are under-challenge in this writ petition, are not only illegal, arbitrary and contrary to the settled propositions of law but also against the facts and circumstances of the case as well as against the record. The learned Board . completely failed to appreciate that the petitioner is seeking only proper opportunity for the hearing and without any fault of the petitioner, his legal right and principle of natural justice, has been violated. The learned Board completely failed to appreciate that if in a matter no instruction is pleaded by the counsel it is the duty of the Court to issue notices to the party concerned in this regard but in the present matter no notices were issued to the petitioner and only on the basis of a statement of the counsel, the appeal was finally decided. The learned Board also completely failed to appreciate that the provisions of Order 9 Rule 13 and Order 41 rule 21 of the CPC are equal. Court attention has been drawn by the learned counsel for the petitioner to the following Judgments: (1) Sushila Narahari and others vs. Nandakumar and another, 1996 5 SCC 539; and (2) The High Court of Judicature for Rajasthan Advocate Conduct Rules, 2006. Thus, the impugned judgments passed by the respondents be quashed and set aside.
(3.) Per contra Mr. Hemraj Gaur, learned counsel appearing for the respondents submits that the notices were duly issued to the petitioner. He submits that a perusal of the order-sheet of the case file of the appeal shows that four adjournments, after admission of the appeal, were given before final hearing of the appeal on 24.11.2009. The advocate of the petitioner respondent No. 1 informed the court that he had informed his client to appear and contact him. Finally, on 24.11.2009 when the appeal came up for final hearing, the advocate of the petitioner respondent No. 1 gave in writing to the court that he had informed the parties about the date but they party did not approach him as such he is pleading no instruction and the advocate had done his duty and informed the party but the party did not turn up on the date of hearing which shows his carelessness and negligence. Thus the impugned judgment dated 29.3.2009 (Annex. 1) and Judgment and Decree dated 3.12.2009 (Annex. 2] passed by the learned Board of Revenue for Rajasthan, Ajmer needs no interference of this Court. From a bare perusal of the facts of the case as also the material made available to me, it is clear the learned Board of Revenue while passing the impugned Judgment dated 29.3.2010 and Judgment and Decree dated 3.12.2009 has gone through each and every aspect of the matter and has no committed any mistake in passing the same. Thus, the impugned judgment; passed by the learned Board of Revenue need no interference of this Court. In the result, this writ petition is devoid of merits and stands rejected The parties shall bear their own costs.;