Research › Browse › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

1999 DIGILAW 1320 (RAJ)

State of Rajasthan v. Pukhraj

1999-10-26

B.J.SHETHNA

body1999
Honble SHETHNA, J.–The State of Rajasthan has challenged in this petition the impugned common judgment and order dated 1.12.88 (Annex.8) passed by the District Judge, Jalore whereby the learned District Judge not only allowed the review application filed by the respondent No.1 Pukhraj but also allowed the appeal filed by him. (2). The respondent no.1 submitted a sale deed of land admeasuring 540 sq.ft. for registration before the Sub-Registrar (Stamps), Jalore who was of the opinion that it was undervalued and according to him, the amount should be Rs. 22,000/-instead of Rs. 12,500/-as mentioned in the sale-deed. Therefore, he recommended the case under Section 47(A) of the Stamps Act to he Collector (District Magistrate), Jalore, praying that proper stamps duty is evaded, therefore, the same may be recovered with penalty (Annex.1). The learned District Magistrate allowed he application of the Sub-Registrar by his order dated 30.4.84 and ordered to pay the deficit stamps along with a penalty of Rs. 145/-(Annex.2). (3). The aforesaid order was challenged by the respondent no.1 in appeal be-fore the learned District Judge, Jalore who dismissed the appeal along with 34 cases by his judgment and order dated 4.2.85 only on the ground that he had no jurisdiction to entertain such appeals. Some of them challenged the order passed by the District Judge before this Court by way of revisional petitions. (The respondent no.1 -Pukhraj did not challenge the said order). Those petitions were allowed by this court on 23.1.986 by holding that the District Judge had jurisdiction to entertain and decide the appeals and, therefore, the matters were remanded to the learned District Judge to decide the same on merits. Accordingly, the learned District Judge, jalore by his judgment and order dated 19.7.86 allowed those appeals which were remanded to him by this Court and set aside the order passed by the learned District Magistrate on 30.4.84. (4). It was thereafter on 23.1.86 that the respondent no.1 first filed review petition before the District Magistrate, Jalore to review his own order dated 30.4.84 along with an application under Section5 of the Limitation Act. However, the said review petition was dismissed on 8.6.86 by the District Magistrate, Jalore (Annex.5). (5). (4). It was thereafter on 23.1.86 that the respondent no.1 first filed review petition before the District Magistrate, Jalore to review his own order dated 30.4.84 along with an application under Section5 of the Limitation Act. However, the said review petition was dismissed on 8.6.86 by the District Magistrate, Jalore (Annex.5). (5). Thereafter, the respondent no.1 filed a review petition before the learned District Judge, Jalore to review his order dated 19.7.86 whereby the appeal of the respondent no.1 was also dismissed by him on the ground that he had no jurisdiction. It was prayed in the review petition that as per the judgment of the High Court in cases of others, his appeal may also be restored on file and the same may be decided on merits. The learned District Judge,Jalore condoned the delay in filing the review petition late and allowed the same and also allowed the appeal of the respondent no.1 by his judgment and order dated 1.12.98 (Annex.8) and set aside the order of the District Magistrate, Jalore passed on 30.4.84 (Annex.2). This order has been challenged by the petitioner State of Rajasthan in this petition. (6). The learned Additional Govt. Advocate Mr. R.K. Soni for the petitioner State vehemently submitted that the learned District Judge, Jalore committed a grave error in passing the impugned order at Annex.8 because he had no jurisdic-tion to review his own order as provided under Order 47, Rule 1 C.P.C. He submitted that the judgment/order cannot be reviewed by the Court on the ground that there was a subsequent decision of the Superior Court. He has relied upon the Explanation to Order 47, Rule 1 C.P.C. The same has been reproduced at page 13 of the petition which reads as under: ``Explanation : The fact that the decision on a question of law on which the judgment of the Court is based has been reversed or modified by the subsequent decision of a superior Court in any other case, shall not be a ground for the review of such judgment. (7). This submission of Mr. Soni has no substance. Explanation to Order 47, Rule 1 C.P.C. deals with the matter where a question of law on which the judgment of the Court was based was either reversed or modified by the subsequent decision of the Superior Court in any case cannot be a ground for review of such judgment. (8). (7). This submission of Mr. Soni has no substance. Explanation to Order 47, Rule 1 C.P.C. deals with the matter where a question of law on which the judgment of the Court was based was either reversed or modified by the subsequent decision of the Superior Court in any case cannot be a ground for review of such judgment. (8). In nut shell, I have produced the entire history of the case. The learned District Judge, Jalore disposed of as many as 34 appeals including the appeal of the respondent no.1 by his order dated 4.2.85. Some of the appellants before the District Judge had challenged the said order before this court by way of revision petitions which were allowed by this Court and the matter was remanded to the learned District judge to decide the same on merits by holding that the learned District Jud-ge and jurisdiction to entertain and decide the appeal on merits. Thus, the learned District Judge had committed a jurisdictional error by not entertaining the appeal though he had jurisdiction. He had not decided any question of law while dismissing the appeal on the ground of jurisdiction. Thus, the explanation to Order 47, Rule 1 C.P.C. is not at all applicable in this case. (9). After the appeals were remanded to the learned District Judge, Jalore and the said appeals were allowed by him, then in my opinion, the learned District Judge has not committed any error in accepting the review petition filed by the respondent no.1 and after reviewing his earlier order of dismissing the appeal on jurisdiction, allowed the appeal in view of the fact that similar appeals were allow-ed by him earlier. Thus, the impugned judgment and order at Annex.8 passed by the learned District Judge, Jalore is fully in accordance with law and by passing that order, the learned District Judge has done substantial justice to the respondent no.1. (10). Before parting, it must be stated that the orders passed by the learned District Judge in appeal on remand have become final in as much as that they were not challenged further by the State of Rajasthan. In that view of the matter, it cannot be said that the learned District Judge, Jalore has committed any error in passing the impugned order at Annex. 8 in favour of the respondent no.1. (11). In that view of the matter, it cannot be said that the learned District Judge, Jalore has committed any error in passing the impugned order at Annex. 8 in favour of the respondent no.1. (11). In view of the above discussion, I do not find any substance of merits in this case and accordingly, it is dismissed.