- (1.) THIS is a revision petition against the order of the learned Revenue Appellate Authority, Jaipur, dated 9. 12. 1964, whereby he accepted the appeal against the order of the Sub-Divisional Officer, Kishengarh dated 18. 8. 1964 and granted a temporary injunction in favour of the plaintiff-non-petitioner.
(2.) THE facts of the case are that the plaintiff-non-petitioner filed a suit under sec. 188 of the Rajasthan Tenancy Act against the petitioners-defendants. During the pendency of the suit, an application under sec. 212 of the Rajasthan Tenancy Act was moved before the trial court and an ad-interim injunction was granted against the petitioners-defendants. However, after hearing the parties, the learned trial court vacated the same on 18. 8. 1964. An appeal was filed against this order by the plaintiff-non-petitioner in the court of the Revenue Appellate Authority who accepted the same and granted the temporary injunction. A revision petition has now been filed against this order by the petitioners-defendants. It has been urged on behalf of the petitioners that the learned Revenue Appellate Authority has failed to apply its mind to the facts of the case. It has also not correctly interpreted the law on the subject. It is contended that none of the ingredients necessary for the issue of temporary injunction exist in the present case and that the assessment of the trial court should carry greater weight and should not be rejected unless there are formidable grounds to do so. A perusal of the impugned order shows that the appellate authority has been obviously impressed by the plan contained in the pass book issued by the Consolidation Department and produced by the plaintiff-non-petitioner. In this plan, the way which is now being claimed by the petitioners does not exist. On the other hand, the plan (Ex. C. W. 1) produced by the Patwari, Sohanlal, shows that there is a way leading from khasra No. 98 to Khasra No. 104 and it passes through Khasra No. 110 which belongs to the plaintiff-non-petitioner. According to the Patwari this plan was prepared by him on the basis of the plan which he received from the Consolidation Deptt. Relying on this plan, the trial court had vacated the ad-interim injunction. But the Appellate Court did not accept this plan and based its judgment on the plan contained in the Pass Book issued by the Consolidation Deptt. While doing so, it was observed by the Appellate Court that it would have been desirable if the trial court had called in the original record from the Consolidation Deptt. to see whether the Deptt. had made a mistake in issuing a wrong copy to the plaintiff-non-petitioner in his Pass Book. Notwithstanding this observation, the Appellate Court proceeded to adjudicate upon the issue without the original record of the Consolidation Department and came to the conclusion that the temporary injunction should have been continued by the trial court till the disposal of the case. The Appellate Court, therefore, accepted the appeal and granted the temporary injunction. It is evident that two mutually contradictory plans have been produced by either party in this case. Both of them allege the same to have been drawn from the Consolidation Department. It was, therefore, absolutely necessary that the original record of the Consolidation Deptt. should have been called for examination and if, as it is alleged, the Patwari was found guilty of having tampered with the same it would have been a fit case for disciplinary action against him. Moreover, in such a case, where conflicting plans are produced in Court and ostensibly both of them appear to emanate from reliable sources, it is desirable that the court should inspect the site and record its personal observation. Maintenance of correct and upto date revenue records is the primary duty of the Revenue Officers. It is necessary that the Revenue Officers should, therefore, be continuously touring in their jurisdiction so that they are in a (position to frequently check and re-check the land records maintained by the subordinate officials. When such discrepancies come to notice they should not be lightly ignored. On the other hand, they constitute a challenge to the competence and sense of duty of alert revenue officials. In the light of the foregoing discussion, I am of the opinion that the lower appellate court has erred in taking a hasty decision without having first ascertained the genuineness of the plans produced by either party. I, therefore, accept this revision petition and remit the case to the trial court with the direction that the original record may be obtained from the Consolidation Department, and the genuineness of the plan produced by either party may be ascertained in the light of the same, before the matter is finally decided. A spot inspection would also throw ample light on the situation. If the Patwari is found guilty of having tampered with the record, suitable disciplinary action should be taken against him, under intimation to this office. . ;