- (1.) Plaintiff Radha Kishan, who is not a party in this writ petition filed a suit under Section 43 of the Rajasthan Tenancy Act in the Court of Sub Divisional Officer, Tonk against the petitioners wherein it was alleged that the land in dispute was mortgaged with the defendants petitioners and in view of Section 43 of the Act the same has been redeemed automatically. Therefore, the defendants have become trespasser and a decree be passed in favour of the plaintiff non-petitioner No.3, Ramji Lal and against the defendants and that the defendants be directed to hand over the possession of the land in dispute. During the pendency of the suit plaintiff Radha Kishan died on 4.2.75. An application for substitution of his legal representatives was filed by Ramji Lal alleging himself to be an adopted son of late Shri Radha Kishan. The defendants petitioners filed reply to the aforesaid application and submitted that Ramji Lal is not an adopted son. It was also submitted that Radha Kishan has not executed any will in favour of any one. An affidavit of Mangi Lal dated 22.8.75 was also filed in support of the reply. The defendant petitioners also submitted before the lower court that the matter relating to the adoption of Ramji Lal by sole plaintiff Radha Kishan cannot be decided by the revenue court therefore, the revenue court has got no jurisdiction and the matter be referred to the civil court and/or revenue suit may be dismissed on the ground that it has got no jurisdiction. The learned A.C.M. passed the order dated 19.9.88 that the plaintiff does not want to file any reply of the aforesaid application. Arguments were heard on the application regarding jurisdiction on 21.9.88 and the case was fixed for orders on 27.9.88. The learned A.C.M. dismissed the application of the defendant petitioner regarding jurisdiction vide order dated 27.9.88. The application which was filed by Ramji Lal for substitution of legal representative of Radha Kishan was heard on 30.9.88 and vide order dated 5.10.88 the application filed by Ramji Lai was allowed.
(2.) The petitioners filed a revision petition before the Board of Revenue against the order dated 27.9.88 and the same was rejected vide order dated 30.3.93. Thereafter the petitioners also filed a review petition wherein it was submitted that the question involved in the present case was about the jurisdiction of the civil court whereas; in the order dated 30.3.93 the question of substitution of legal representatives has been decided, therefore, there is an error apparent on the face of the record but the review petition was also dismissed vide order dated 19.7.93.
(3.) Aggrieved and dissatisfied by the order passed by the Assistant Collector (I), Tonk dated 27.9.88 as well as of Revenue Board dated 30.3.93 passed in the revision petition and that of in review petition dated 19.7.93, preferred this present writ petition before this court for setting aside these orders.;