- (1.) The contention raised in the present writ petition is that the Division Bench of the Board of Revenue has wrongly allowed the appeal of the State Government vide impugned order Annex.A/6 dated 12/3/2010 though the respondents Bheru s/o Nathu and Smt. Ghishi D/o Moti - present petitioners were not heard in the matter.
(2.) Learned counsel for the petitioner Mr.D.C.Sharma submitted that while dealing with the application filed by Kishan Lal under Order 1 Rule 10 CPC prior to the next date fixed in appeal on 25/5/2010, the Division Bench while dismissing the application under Order 1 Rule 10 CPC on 12/3/2010 has proceeded to allow the appeal itself after hearing the arguments of the learned counsel for the State Mr.J.P.Mathur, Advocate. Learned counsel submitted that the summons of said appeal were not even served on respondents Bheru s/o Nathu and Smt. Ghishi D/o Shri Moti. This submission of learned counsel appears to be apparently incorrect because in the presence marked in the order dated 12/3/2010 it is clearly stipulated that nobody is present on behalf of the respondents despite intimation/service and, therefore, ex-parte proceedings were undertaken. Even if the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner was to be accepted, this can only make out a case for factual error which will depend on perusal of record of the said appeal as to whether the summons of the appeal were actually served on the respondents or not. This being the matter of record of said Division Bench of Board of Revenue, the present petitioners- respondents in said appeal can only file a review petition before the Division Bench of Board of Revenue as to whether ex-parte proceedings have rightly been drawn against the respondents or not. The other contentions of the learned counsel that even appeal was not maintainable can also be raised before the Division Bench of the Board of Revenue.
(3.) No case of interference is made out in the present writ petition. The writ petition being devoid of merit is hereby dismissed.;