- (1.) THESE four applications in revision which arise against an appellate order of the learned Additional Commissioner, Jaipur, dated 30. 5. 1956 shall be disposed of by this judgment as a common point of law is involved in them.
(2.) WE have heard the learned counsel appearing for the parties and have examined the record of the case. It appears that the plaintiffs opposite-party filed a suit against each one of the applicants for recovery of arrears of rent in the court of the Assistant Collector, Sikar. During the course of proceedings an objection was raised by the counsel for the applicant about the admissibility of a document relied upon by the plaintiff on the ground that it was not duly registered. The learned trial court overruled this objection and allowed the document to be admitted in evidence. Being aggrieved by this order the defendant-applicants filed appeals before the learned Additional Commissioner, Jaipur. He observed that as under sec. 225 (2) of the Rajasthan Tenancy Act, read with sec. 104 of the C. P. C, an appeal against such an interlocutory order did not lie to him the same may be dismissed. It is against this order that the applicants have filed these revisions before us. The learned counsel for the applicants argued that according to the scheme of the Rajasthan Tenancy Act every order passed by a trial court was appealable under sec. 225 and that sec. 104 of the C. P. C. was not applicable. In support of this contention he has referred to a Division Bench decision of the Board, Teja vs. Naharmal, R. R. D. page 166 in which it was held that in accordance with the provisions of appeal as contained in the Rajasthan Tenancy Act, 1955, all orders have been made appealable but no second appeals have been provided against them. It was also observed that sec. 208 of the Tenancy Act makes it clear that the provisions of the Civil Procedure Code shall apply to all suits and proceedings under the Act excepting provisions inconsistent with anything in this Act so far as inconsistency extends. The learned counsel also strengthened his argument by pointing out that the Rajasthan Tenancy Act which was drafted on the pattern of the U. P. Tenancy Act XVII of 1939 did not contain any section corresponding to sec. 271 of the U. P. Tenancy Act wherein certain types of orders were made specially appealable under the provisions of the Civil Procedure Code. It was, therefore, urged that the intention of the Legislature by omitting this section from the Rajasthan Tenancy Act is clear in so far as they did not contemplate to restrict the types of orders which alone were appealable in revenue suits and proceedings. We have examined the provisions of sec. 208 of the Act which correspond to sec. 243 of the U. P. Tenancy Act. Under this section as well as sec. 208 of the Rajasthan Tenancy Act, Civil Procedure: Code has been made applicable subject to certain exceptions. One of the important exceptions is that the provisions of the Code of Civil Procedure which may be inconsistent with the provisions of the Tenancy Act so far as the inconsistency extends will not apply to matters dealt with in the Tenancy Act. Section 225 clearly lays down that an appeal shall He from an order to - (1) the Collector, if such order is passed by the Tehsildar. (2) the Commissioner if such order is passed by an Assistant Collector, a Sub-Divi-sional Officer, or a Collector ; and (3) to the Board if such order is passed by a Commissioner. In the case before us the order was passed by the Assistant Collector and an appeal against that order was competent to the Additional Commissioner. Evidently he failed to exercise a jurisdiction which vested in him by law and his order calls for an interference by us. He has somehow incorrectly held that the words 'an order' mentioned in sec. 225 of the Rajasthan Tenancy Act meant only an order which falls within the ambit of sec. 104 or O. 43, R. 1 C. P. C. , There is no justification, for reasons already set out above, for construing these words so narrowly. In this view of the matter we allow these applications, set aside the orders of the learned Additional Commissioner and direct that he shall hear all the four appeals filed before him and dispose of them according to law. .;