- (1.) THIS special appeal has been filed against the order of Shri R. D. Mathur dated 10-4-68 whereby he rejected the restoration application filed by the appellant praying for the restoration of the appeal which was dismissed in default on 9-6-67.
(2.) BRIEFLY stated the facts of the case are that the respondent is the ex-jagirdar of Thikana Ratlai in the erstwhile Jodhpur State. As the tenants of his village Khakharki refused to pay rent, he made an application under sec. 78 of the Marwar Tenancy Act to the Tehsildar, Merta for realisation of rent. A notification was also issued by the Govt. and thereafter the Collector Nagaur ordered the recovery, of the rent. Against this order of Collector, an appeal was preferred before the Addl. Commissioner on 2-11-51 but the same was rejected. Thereafter the case was taken to the Board of Revenue and thence to the High Court and finally to the Supreme Court. In its order dated 19-10-60, the Supreme Court, held that the respondent had acquired a substantive right of getting his rent recovered as arrears of land revenue under sec. 85 of the Marwar Tenancy Act and rejected all the pleas raised on behalf of the appellant. In accordance with this decision, the Collector directed the Tehsildar to recover the rent due to the respondent. Thereupon, the appellant prayed that the rent may either be recovered in instalments or the recovery may be made in accordance with the procedure laid down in the Rajasthan Land Reforms & Resumption of Jagirs Act. The Addl. Collector issued stay orders on this application but finally vacated the same on 17-12-63. Against this order of vacation of stay, the appellant went in appeal to the R. A. A. who rejected the same on 12-5-65. Against this order of rejection the appellant filed a revision petition before the Board of Revenue. This revision petition was also rejected by a Single Member of the Board on 16-12-66. Thereafter the appellant filed a special appeal before a D. B. of this Board on 20-1-66. This application was dismissed in default on 9-6-67. This was followed by an application for restoration filed on 4-7-67. The same was rejected by the impugned order. Hence this special appeal. It is argued on behalf of the appellant that the learned Single Member who rejected the restoration application had no jurisdiction to do so in as much as as the Special appeal to which this restoration application was related was heard by a D. B. and therefore, it is argued that the restoration application should also have been heard by a D. B. We are not impressed by this argument. Under rule 1 of the Rajasthan Revenue Courts Manual Part I an application for setting aside an order of dismissal for default by the Board or an ex-parte decision given by the Board is to be heard and disposed of by a Member sitting singly. As such we find that Shri P. D. Mathur sitting singly had full jurisdiction to hear and dispose of the restoration application filed against the order of the D. B. dated 9-6-67 dismissing in default the Special Appeal filed by the appellant. While doing so, the leaned Member went in great detail into the history of the case and duly considered the arguments advanced by the counsel for the appellant. It was urged on behalf of the appellant that Shri N. S. Chordia was his counsel in Special appeal and that on 9-6-67 when the case was called for hearing Shri Chordia did not appear. In his affidavit filed by Shri N. S. Chordia it was stated that when the case was called he was in the Judicial Section of the Board of Revenue and as he did not hear the case being called he did not appear before the Court. The learned Member did not find this explanation to be convincing. It was noted that in the Board of Revenue a cause list is always exhibited on the Notice Board and cases are called in the order in which these are listed in the Cause list. It was observed by the learned Member that if Shri Chordia had exercised normal vigilance, he could appear before the Court when the case was called. This he did not do. The Court also took into consideration the affidavit of Jaswant Singh Hawaldar stating that before the hearing of the case on 9-6-67, Shri Chordia had told him that Urjaram appellant had not sent him a sum of Rs. 20/- which was to be paid to the respondent as the cost of adjournment obtained on 3-6-66 and, therefore, he would not appear for arguments. Having considered the arguments advanced by both the side and the record, the learned Member came to the conclusion that the appellant was intentionally adopting delaying tactics to defeat the implementation of the order of the Supreme Court. Under the circumstances, he held that there was no sufficient cause for the non-appearance of the appellant or his counsel on 9-6-67 and, therefore, rejected the restoration application with costs. It is argued by the learned counsel for the appellant that Shri R. D. Mathur should not have gone into the history of the case while disposing of the simple matter of the restoration application. We fail to appreciate this argument. A court cannot be precluded from examining the entire gamut of arguments on record relevant to the disposal of an issue. We find that the order of Shri R. D. Mathur is very elaborate and stocked with good reasons. We find no illegality in this order which may justify our interference in this special appeal. It is a well settled that the scope of special appeal is limited. As has been held in several cases this is not a power of hearing the appeals provided by any enactment but a power of exercising of the jurisdiction vested in the Board itself. In other words, it is not an appeal as provided by the enactment under which the case lies but only an appeal as a special case to examine the correctness or propriety of an order passed by a Single Member. We find no such incorrectness or impropriety in the impugned order and, therefore, have no hesitation rejecting this appeal with costs. We order accordingly. .;