- (1.) THIS is a revision application under sec. 10(2) of the Rajasthan (Protection of Tenants) Ordinance, 1949, against an order of the S.D.O. Bayana dated 12.10.54, rejecting the request of the applicant for protection under sec. 7 of the Ordinance.
(2.) THIS case has a very chequered history. The applicants filed an application for reinstatement under sec. 7 of the Ordinance on 8 khasra numbers 1449 to 1456 measuring 18 bigha's 3 biswas alleging that they had been cultivating the land in dispute but were dispossessed by the opposite party on 7.6.52. The S. D. O. sanctioned this application the same day. On a revision being filed before this Board, the case was remanded for further enquiry and fresh decision to the S. D. O. Bayana. The said S. D. O. fixed 29.10.52 for hearing the case and summoned the parties. As on this day the summons for the applicants were not received back, the case was further adjourned twice. Eventually when it was taken on 20.11.52 the applicants failed to appear in spite of service and the application was rejected. In consequence of dismissal the application of the applicants, the opposite party was ornered to be restored possession of which he had been dispossessed as a result of the S.D.O.s' order dated 16.6.52. The Girdawar proceeded to the spot and delivered possession to Ghasida on 9.12.52 and a Dakhalnama was filed by the opposite party before the Tehsildar Weir on 15.12.52. Gordhan applicant then presented a fresh application to the S.D.O,, on 6.1.53 alleging that he had been dispossessed of the land in dispute on 2.1.53 and should therefore be reinstated. The opposite party pleaded that he had never dispossessed the applicants and that he had been put in possession through the court of the Tehsildar be way of restitution as a consequence of the dismissal of the applicant's, previous application. The S.D.O. held that the proceedings relating to restitution and delivery of possession to the opposite party on 9.12.52 were confined to paper only and that actual possession had never been transferred and Gordhan etc. had actually dispossessed the opposite party on 2.1.53. He therefore, ordered reinstatement of the applicants. On a revision having been again filed; by the opposite party against the above order of the S.D.O. in this Board, the decision of the lower court was set aside and the case was remanded with the observation that "the patwari and the Girdawar were persons who went to the spot and reported delivery of possession. If neither party examined these persons, it was the duty of the court, more so as it had practically condemned their actions, to examine them and to ascertain the real facts form them". In compliance of this order the S.D.O. examined Udmilal lambardar, patwari Dal Chand and Mannalal Girdawar Kanugo and held that actual possession had been delivered to the opposite party through the Tehsil on 9.12.52 and as such the applicants having not been in possession within three months immediately preceding the date of filing the application under the Ordinance, their application for reinstatement was beyond limitation. The applicants have now come in revision against the above order before this Board. I have heard the counsel for the parties and have examined the record of the case. The main contention of the counsel for the applicants is that the lower court had erred in holding that the application was barred by limitation, that the lower cours wrong in concluding that that opposite party had been given actual possession on 9.12.52, that the applicants were not given proper opportunity to lead their evidence in the case as the applicants desired to produce Challan No. 233 showing payment of rent by them for Svt. 2010 but the lower court did not admit the document. Before going into the other merits of the case' I shall first examine wether the application presented by the applicants in the lower courts was within limitation. It is evident from the record that the applicant first presented an application on 10.6.12 alleging dispossession by the opposite party on 7-6 52. This application was granted on 10.6.52 and in execution of the order of the lower court possession was transferred to the applicants. This order was however, set aside by the Board and the case was remanded for further enquiry and fresh decision. As the applicant failed to appear before S.D.O. inspite of service, their application was rejected and possession was restored to the opposite party on 9.12.52 through the Tehsil staff. The applicants filed their second application with the allegation that they had been dispossessed on 2.1.53. This they failed to prove. The lower court held that dispossession by the opposite party had taken place as early as 7-6 52 that the transfer of possession by way of restitution on 9.12.52 did not amount to dispossession by the opposite party and that the applicants had failed to lead any evidence to show that after the restitution of the land in dispute to the opposite party on 9.12.52 they had lawfully regained possession and were dispossessed a second time on 2.1.53. The lower court has given cogent and convincing reasons for disbelieving this plea of the applicant and holding the applicant as time barred and I see no reason to differ from it. As regard the contention that a proper opportunity was not allowed to the applicants to lead their evidence, the counsel for applicants referred me to an application presented on their behalf in the lower court on 22-9 54. With this application the applicants desired to produce a copy of the Tehsil Challan as also the rent receipt for payment of rent for Svt. 2010 in respect of the land in disputed It is evident from the record, the evidence in the case had already been conclude, as early as 17.8.54 and arguments had also been party heard on 31.8.54. The lower court was, therefore, justified in refusing to admit documents produced at that late stage. However, even if these documents were admitted they could only show that the land revenue for the land in dispute had been paid by the applicant. They could not disclose anything about the actual cultivation of the land in dispute. According to sec. 167 of the Evidence Act the improper admission or rejection of evidence shall not be a ground of itself for a new trial or reversal of any decision in any case, if it appears to the Court before which such objection is raised that independently of the evidence objected to and admitted, there was sufficient evidence to justify the decision or that, if the rejected evidence had been received it ought not to have varied the decision. In my opinion even if the evidence alleged to have been rejected had been admitted it would have hardly affected the merits of the case. In the circumstances, I see no reason to interfere with the finding of the lower court on this score. The revision is hereby rejected.;