- (1.) This petition has been filed seeking review of the judgment of this Court dated 27.10.2017, by which the special appeal filed by plaintiff-appellant Jagdish Narain Pareek has been dismissed by the Division Bench upholding the judgment of the learned Single Judge dated 02.08.2001 in the writ petition. In the writ petition, challenge was made to the judgment dated 28.12.1990 of the Board of Revenue in Second Appeal as also its judgment dated 06.12.1993 in the Review Petition. By the judgment dated 28.12.1990, the Board of Revenue dismissed the second appeal of the appellant upholding the judgment dated 25.09.1979 of the Revenue Appellate Authority (First), Jaipur as also judgment dated 31.03.1975 of the Sub Divisional Officer, Jaipur. By the judgment dated 06.12.1993, the Board of Revenue dismissed the petition seeking review of the judgment dated 28.12.1990.
(2.) The argument of the appellant before the Division Bench was that the suit was filed by the plaintiff-appellant as a minor in the year 1967 after death of his father in 1963 through his legal guardian and therefore from the point of view of limitation, this being the suit of declaration and possession should have been treated within limitation. It was also argued that prayer was made only for declaration and other consequential reliefs. There is no limitation for a declaratory suit under the Rajasthan Tenancy Act, 1955 and even under the Jaipur Tenancy Act, 1945, which was prevalent earlier. It was also argued that there was no limitation for declaratory suit but it could be for possession, and once the decree of declaration is passed in favour of the plaintiff-appellant, the possession would be given as a consequential relief. Reliance in this connection was placed on the judgments of the Supreme Court in Shakuntala Devi Vs. Kamla and Others, (2005) 5 SCC 390, and Venkataraja and Others Vs. Vidyane Doureradjaperumal, (2014) 14 SCC 502.
(3.) The Division Bench dismissed the appeal by recording a finding that this argument was for the first time being raised before the Division Bench and the question of limitation was not specifically canvassed before the authorities below. It was held that the Board of Revenue has rightly observed in its judgment that the suit was time barred, which finding has been approved by the learned Single Judge, therefore the limitation, which is applicable in the case of possession, cannot be indirectly removed by seeking support of the aforementioned judgments of the Supreme Court that possession is merely a consequential relief. It is argued that the Petition for Special Leave to Appeal (Civil) No.5842/2018, Jagdish Narain Pareek Vs. Nathu (D) through Lrs & Others, was filed before the Supreme Court against the judgment and order dated 27.10.2017, which was dismissed by the Supreme Court vide judgment dated 02.04.2018, as withdrawn with liberty to the appellant to file a review petition.;