- (1.) THIS revision petition is directed against the order of the Revenue Appellate Authority, Kota, dated the 31st October, 1963, whereby he dismissed the appeal filed by the plaintiff-applicant against the order of the Sub Divisional Officer, Sawai Madhopur, dated the 3rd July, 1963. In a suit for declaration and permanent injunction, the plaintiff-applicant filed a petition before the trial court under sec. 212 of the Rajasthan Tenancy Act praying for the appointment of a receiver in respect of the lands in dispute. The trial Court found that the lands have been recorded in Khatedari of the defendants-opposite party and, therefore, declined to appoint the receiver. Aggrieved by this order the plaintiff-applicant filed an appeal in the Court of the Revenue Appellate Authority who rejected the appeal but at the same time restrained the defendants-opposite party from wasting, damaging or alienating the lands in dispute in any manner till the final decision in the original suit. It is against this order that the present revision petition has been filed.
(2.) THE case was heard ex-parte as the counsel for the defendants-opposite party was not present despite notice. The learned counsel for the plaintiff-applicant has argued that the judgment of the lower appellate Court was not a judgment in the eye of law as the learned Revenue Appellate Authority had not carefully examined the documents produced by the plaintiff-applicant and was not justified in being influenced by the decision of a criminal Court in a case under sec. 145 Cr. P. C. He argued that it is the duty of an appellate Court to make an independent appreciation of the evidence as it is a Court of fact as well as law. He stated that the first appellate Court is expected to go through the record judiciously and that its judgment should be self sufficient and sought to establish thereby that in not having applied its mind to facts, the first appellate Court had committed a material irregularity. He also argued that in a suit for permanent injunction it was necessary for a Court to grant temporary injunction, otherwise the suit would become infructuous. I have examined the record and have carefully gone through the judgments of the lower Courts. While I find that the judgments are brief and pithy, I see no reason to interfere with the order of the lower appellate Court in this revision, as, firstly, I find that in restraining the defendants-opposite party from wasting, damaging, or alienating the lands in dispute in any manner, substantial relief has been granted to allay the fears of the plaintiff-applicant. With this injunction in force it does not seem necessary to order the appointment of receiver. Secondly, it is well settled law that a Court of revision should be reluctant to interfere with the concurrent decisions of the lower Courts unless it was shown that the lower Court had acted with material irregularity in exercise of the jurisdiction. In the exercise of revi-sional powers it is not the province of the Board to enter into the merits of the evidence. If the external conditions of jurisdiction are satisfied, the Board is not expected to substitute its own appreciation of evidence or its own judgment thereon for the determination of the inferior court in a matter lying within the discretion of the inferior Court. I, therefore, hold in the present case the ingredients of Sec. 230 of the Rajasthan Tenancy Act are not attracted and there is no ground to interfere with the order of the lower appellate Court. The revision petition is accordingly rejected. .;