Alok Sharma, J. - (1.) A challenge has been made to the order dated 31 -3 -2015 passed by the Board of Revenue Ajmer (hereinafter 'the Board'), whereby the Board even while holding that the revision petition filed by respondent before it was not maintainable, resorted to its superintending powers under Section 221 of the Rajasthan Tenancy Act, 1955 (hereinafter 'the 1995 Act') and set aside the ad interim orders dated 20 -1 -2014 and 4 -4 -2014 passed in two partition suits filed before the trial court.
(2.) MR . Sudesh Bansal, counsel for the petitioners -plaintiffs (hereinafter 'the plaintiffs') has submitted that a revision petition against ad interim orders passed by Sub Divisional Officer Chomu in the course of partition suits was not maintainable before the Board, as so held by it as the impugned order was appealable under Section 225 of the 1955 Act. He submitted that the resort to superintending powers of the Board under Section 221 of the 1955 Act was not available to the Board in the circumstances to circumvent the absence of jurisdiction in hearing a challenge to the impugned orders on the revision petition laid before it. Counsel submitted that the status quo order dated 20 -1 -2014 passed in the application under Order 39 Rule 1 & 2 CPC read with Section 212 of the 1955 Act in the suit laid by the plaintiffs was thus wrongly set aside by the Board, even while the said application was pending before the trial court for final adjudication. Mr. R.P. Singh, learned Senior Advocate appearing with Mr. Shashikant Saini on behalf of respondent No. 1 (hereinafter 'the defendant'), submitted that superintending powers under Section 221 of the 1955 Act have been rightly exercised by the Board in view of gross injustice being perpetrated on the defendant, in view of the fact that even as per plaintiffs' own admission the land earlier in the co -khatedari of the contesting parties had been divided according to , which is equivalent to a family settlement, on the basis of which each party was in duly demarcated physical possession of its actual share in the ancestral land. In the circumstances the ad interim injunction continued for a period of one year even while the application for interim relief was not being decided was an abuse of the process of the court and overlooked by the trial court. He has submitted that the Board was also seized of the fact that an earlier suit for partition filed by one of the co -khatedar was pending in which the plaintiffs and respondents in the subsequent suit were all parties, and therefore the subsequent suit was liable to be stayed and yet the trial court was not addressing the defendants' application under Section 10 CPC. It has been submitted that its superintending powers have been used by the Board in the overall facts of the case to ensure justice as it is the obligation of the Board as the highest revenue court to come down hard where the facts before it so warrant and the Board prima facie finds that judicial proceedings before a subordinate revenue court were being resorted not for the vindication of rights but as an instrument of oppression/pressure.
(3.) HEARD learned counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record as also the provisions of Sections 225, 230 and Section 221 of the 1955 Act.;