- (1.) THIS revision has been filed against the order of RAA Udaipur dated 20-1-68 whereby he held the appeal filed by the applicant against the order of Collector, Tonk dated 31-12-66, incomplete and barred by limitation. As only a point of law is involved in the impugned order, the facts of the case need not be given.
(2.) THE learned counsel for the applicant assailed the impugned order on the ground that on 3-2-67 when the appeal was filed before the RAA the Court did not raise any objection and it would be presumed to have been admitted without any objection. THE appeal was registered on 4-2-67. THE non-applicant could not take the objection after the appeal was registered. He cited 1926 Nagpur 57, AIR 1927 Lahore 451, 1932 Calcutta 711, 1961 SC 862 in support of his argument. He also contended that according to sec. 79 of the Land Revenue Act copy of order appealed against only has to be produced along with the memorandum of appeal. Regarding the various decisions of the Board of Revenue on this point, he stated that all these rulings are in matters of Tenancy Act and do not apply to Land Revenue Act. In reply, the learned counsel for the non-applicant argued that according to the provisions to Order 41 Rule 1 of the CPC and Rule 17 of the Rajasthan Revenue Courts Manual, it is mandatory to attach with the Memo of appeal copy of the order of the trial court also irrespective of the fact whether the appeal or revision is under the Tenancy Act or Land Revenue Act. He further contended that sec. 79 of the Land Revenue Act applies to first appeals and not to second appeals. He stated that taking no objection by the court while it was regi-tered on 4.2-67 does not mean that the respondent (non-applicant) had also waived the objection and an act of Court without affording an opportunity of being heard to the opposite party cannot prejudice the right of the party or work against him. He argued that although the applicant had presented an application u/s. 5 of the Limitation Act but each day's delay has to be accounted for while accepting the application for condonation and that has not been done. I agree with the line of argument advanced by the learned counsel for the non-applicant the applicant applied for copy of trial court's order on 1.2.67 whereas the appeal before the RAA was filed on 3-2-67. The reason assigned by the applicant that the copy of the Tehsil's order remained in the woolen coat of his son and could not be given to his advocate in time is not at all convincing. On the other hand, it goes to show that the applicant had been grossly negligent in this connection The learned counsel for the applicant could not convince why an application for Tehsil's order was given on 8-2-67 when the appeal was filed on 3-2-67 and the plea of delay does not seem to be at all convincing. The rulings cited by the learned counsel for the applicant do not apply to the facts and circumstances of the present case. In AIR 1926 Nagpur 57 it has been held that where the memorandum of appeal stated that the copy of judgment would be given afterwards, and the appeals were admitted on presentation, it must be taken that the Court dispensed with the copy of judgment. In the present case the applicant did not state that the copy of Tehsil's order would be given afterwards and hence this does not help the applicant. In AIR 1927 Lahore 451 it has been held that the admission of a defective memorandum of appeal may operate as a decision and bar a later objection where the defect is quite obvious. This ruling does not help the applicant as it has also been mentioned therein that it was absolutely essential that a copy should accompany the memorandum and in the absence of such copy the presentation of appeal was defective. AIR 1939 Calcutta page 711 on which the learned counsel has laid much stress lays down that O. 41, R. 1 does not say that the Court must record an order dispensing with the judgment. The absence of a recorded order does not, therefore, necessarily show that no order was passed. The learned Judge in this case held it will be presumed that dispensation was given at the time the appeal was filed. The circumstances which led the learned Judge in that case to presume such dispensation were that a reference of the judgment of the trial court was entirely unnecessary for the determination of the question involved under sec. 4 of the Partition Act. The appellant in that case wanted merely to exercise his right of purchasing the share acquired by a stranger to the family. This right was not asserted or refused in the court of the first instance and the judgment of the trial court which did not deal with this question was not required for consideration by the appellate court. The Rajasthan Revenue Courts Manual has been framed in exercise of the powers vested in the Board by Sec 261 (1) of the Rajasthan Land Revenue Act and this Manual provides for the regulation of the procedure to be followed for carrying out the provisions of the Rajasthan Land Revenue Act and thus the plea taken by the applicant's counsel that the provisions of this Manual only apply to Tenancy Act and not to the Land Revenue Act has no force. The Revenue Board has clearly laid down the rule as per rulings given in 1965 RRD 17, 1956 RRD 21, 1968 RRD 471 and 1968 RRD 476 that filing of the copy of the order judgment of the trial court along-with the copy of the order or decree appealed against is mandatory and non-filing has been held to he fatal. In view of the consistent view of the Board, the applicant's non-filing of the copy of the order of the Tehsildar made the appeal before the R.A.A. incomplete, defective & incompetent and the action of the R.A.A. in rejecting the appeal on this ground was perfectly just and proper. In the present case, the facts and circumstances did not appear to have at all dispensed with the trial court's order. The trial court's (Tehsil) order was required to be accompanied with the memorandum of appeal and if any delay took place in obtaining or filing the copy of the Tehsil order, the applicant should have given satisfactory account for each day's delay. A feeble attempt was made through the application u/s. 5 of the Limitation Act to cover up the delay which has been caused due to the utter negligence of the applicant. The learned R. A. A. in these circumstances, was perfectly justified in holding the appeal to be incomplete and barred by limitation. I do not find any illegality in the impugned order. In the result, the revision petition fails.;