- (1.) NANDA Ahir of Kanwarpur applied before the Anti-Ejectment Officer Jaipur against Chokha and thirteen others under sec. 7 of the Rajasthan Protection of Tenants Ordinance (Hereinafter referred to as R. P. T. O.) for re-instatement with the allegations that he is a Biswedar tenant of the holding in dispute and was wrongly dispossessed by the opposite party. On behalf of the opposite party one of the ground set up in defence was that the matter related to Biswedars inter-se and as such the provisions of the R. P. T. O. had no application in the case. The Anti-Ejectment Officer vide his order dated 17. 9. 52 held that the applicant was a tenant and therefore his application was maintainable under the R. P. T. O. and directed the parties to produce their evidence. A revision has been filed against this order of the Anti-Ejectment Officer before this court.
(2.) A preliminary objection has been taken in this revision as regards its maintainability. The subject matter of this revision is an interlocutory order passed by the Anti-Ejectment Officer, Jaipur. Sec. 10 (2) of the R. P. T. O. authorises this court to call for the record of any case disposed of by the Sub-Divisional Officer or other officer of equal status under this Ordinance and to pass such order as may appear to be just and expedient. The term "case disposed of" obviously means a case decided finally and cannot be so stretched as to include interlocutory decisions as well. Sub-sec. 1 of sec. 10 of the R. P. T. O. lays down that no appeal shall lie from an order of the Sub-Divisional Officer passed under this Ordinance. This is obviously an extra-ordinary provision of law and appears to have been adopted by the Legislature in its anxiety to provide a speedy and expeditious remedy for cases covered by the Ordinance. Sub-sec. 2 provides for revisional jurisdiction of the Board of Revenue and the term "case disposed of" exists in this provision. This term cannot be capable of any other interpretation but that the case should be decided finally before the Board of Revenue can exercise its revisional jurisdiction. A similar view was expressed in 1952 R. L. W. (Supplement Reports for Revenue) Page 4 and I find myself in perfect agreement with the same. On behalf of the applicants, a reference was made to sec. 3 of the Rajasthan Revenue Courts Act, 1951 as well. But this hardly seems to have any relevancy to the point at issue. Sec. 3 of the aforesaid Act lays down that except as otherwise "specifically provided herein" nothing in this Act shall in any way effect the provisions of R. P. T. O. Sec. 26 lays down the revisional powers of the Board but contains no specific mention of the revisional powers conferred upon the Board of Revenue by the R. P. T. O. and hence the provisions of the Rajasthan Revenue Courts Act 1951 have no bearing upon the revisional powers of the Board of Revenue under R. P. T. O. A reference by way of analogy was also made to sec. 115 Civil P. C. by the learned counsel appearing for the applicant. According to the provisions contained in this section the High Court may call for the record of any case which has been decided by any court subordinate to High Court and if no appeal lies thereto and if such subordinate court appears to have exercised a jurisdiction not vested in it by law or to have failed to exercise jurisdiction illegally or with material irregularity the High Court may make such order in the case as it thinks fit. It will be observed that the phraseology employed in the section is "in a case decided by any court" and whereas in sec. 10 of the R. P. T. O. the term used is "case disposed of". The distinction involved cannot be easily ignored. There may be more than one issues involved in the case. The Court trying the same may decide one or two points but it cannot be said that the case has been disposed of by the Court unless all the points at issue have been determined by it. The term "case" in sec. 115 C. P. C. has been examined exhaustively in R. L. W 1952 page 342 and it has been held therein that even if there is an indirect appeal namely a second appeal or the order in question can be taken in either first or second appeal to the High Court taking a ground of appeal under sec. 115 the High Court will not be competent to entertain a revision. It is evident that in a revision against the final decision of the case under R. P. T. O. the validity of interlocutory order can also be challenged. This application should, therefore, fail on this ground alone. The revision application is rejected with costs. .;