Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2005 DIGILAW 1398 (RAJ)

Mala v. Mukesh

2005-05-09

R.N.ARVIND

body2005
ARVIND, MEMBER–This is a revision petition under section 230 of the Rajasthan Tenancy Act, 1955 (in short ``the Act) against the order of learned Sub- Divisional Officer, Khetri dated 20.8.2001 and order dated 17.11.2001 in suit No. 5/2001 and in Temporary Injunction No. 2/2001, whereby the learned Sub- Divisional Officer, has declined to grant more opportunities to file written statement to the petitioners-defendants and thereafter has also rejected the application filed by the defendants. (2). Briefly, the facts of this case are that the plaintiff-non- petitioners Mukesh and Subhash filed a suit for declaration, partition and permanent injunction before learned Sub-Divisional Officer, Khetri with regard to land bearing khasra No. 223 measuring 0.26 hectare, Khasra no. 224 measuring 0.25 measuring 0.40 hectare, khasra no. 254 measuring 0.25 hectare, khasra no. 1563/216 measuring 0.25 hectare. This case was fixed for filing written statement on 20.8.2001. That nobody appeared on behalf of the defendants-petitioners before learned Sub-Divisional Officer on 20.8.2001 and learned Sub-Divisional Officer by his order dated 20.8.2001 ordered to close the defence of the defendants and the case was fixed for arguments on 3.9.2001. on 3.9.2001, the defendants filed an application through their counsel that the defendants could not appear because the counsel was not well and one relative was ill so they could not be present. Learned Sub-Divisional Officer by his order dated 7.11.2001 rejected the application filed by the petitioner without giving any reason and case was fixed for 14.12.2001 for hearing. (3). Arguing the case learned counsel reiterated the facts mentioned in the revision petition and stated that the bare perusal of four order sheets shows that learned Sub-Divisional Officer decided the matter in a very casual fashion, without giving any reason. Since no reasons were given in the orders, these orders are no judicial orders in the eye of law and they need to be summarily rejected and learned Sub-Divisional Officer be asked to allow the defendants to accept the written statements and give opportunity to the petitioners-defendants. (4). No one is present on behalf of the non-petitioners and the case was heard ex-parte. (5). (4). No one is present on behalf of the non-petitioners and the case was heard ex-parte. (5). Having heard the arguments of the learned counsel for the petitioners, having seem the record and having considered the facts, I have reached to the following conclusions: (a) That the order dated 20.8.2001 has been passed by learned Sub-Divisional Officer, Khetri in a very casual fashion and not even a single line has been written for assigning any reason. It is relevant to re-produce the order by which the petitioners-defendants were denied the opportunity of filing written statement:- ^^odhy oknh mifLFkrA odhy izfroknh la[;k 1 o 2] 6] 7 yxk;r 12 vuq-A izfroknh la[;k 1 o 2] 6 yxk;r 12 dk tokc nkok can fd;k tkrk gSA i=koyh okLrs lk&oknh fnukad 3-9-2001 dks isk gksaA** ^^odhy izkFkhZ mifLFkrA vizkFkhZ ds odhy dks ckj ckj vkoktsa yxkbZ xbZA ysfdu vuqifLFkrA tokc can fd;k tkrk gSA i=koyh cgl fnukad 3-9-2001 dks isk gksA** (b) The application of the petitioners-defendants for filing written statement and giving an opportunity was also casually rejected by the Sub-Divisional Officer. It is also relevant to re-produce the order sheet dated 7.11.2001: ^^odqyk; Qjhdsu mifLFkrA izk- i= izfr- fnukad 3-9-2001 [kkfjt fd;k tkrk gSA i=koyh okLrs kgknr oknh fnukad 4-12-2001 dks isk gksA** ^^odqyk; Qjhdsu mi-A izkFkZuk i= vizkFkhZx.k fnukad 3-9-2001 [kkfjt fd;k tkrk gSA i=koyh okLrs vafre cgl fnukad 4-12-2001 dks isk gksA** (c) From the bare perusal of these two order sheets, it is evident that learned Sub-Divisional Officer has acted in a very casual, callous and irresponsible manner. The above two orders are not judicial orders in the eye of law and the orders challenged in the petition need to be set aside:- (6). In view of the discussions above, the revision petition is accepted and orders of learned Sub-Divisional Officer dated 20.8.2001 and 7.11.2001 both in the suit and the T.I. application are set aside. Learned Sub-Divisional Officer is directed to give the petitioners opportunity for filing written statement and opportunity to be heard. The petitioners-defendants are directed to submit their written statement before learned Sub-Divisional Officer, Khetri within three months from the date of this order. (7). Copy of this order may also be sent to learned Collector, Jhunjhunu so that this casualness on the part of the learned Sub- Divisional Officer can come to his kind notice. Pronounced.