Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2006 DIGILAW 2279 (RAJ)

Krishna (D) thr. LRs. v. Shyonarain

2006-07-19

G.K.TIWARI

body2006
Honble TIWARI, M.—This is a revision petition under Section 230 of the Rajasthan Tenancy Act, 1955 (`the Act in short) against the impugned order dated 1.6.1996 of Revenue Appellate Authority Hanumangarh passed during the course of appeal No. 197/94. 2. Briefly stated, the facts of the case are that the petitioners-plaintiffs filed a suit under sections 88 and 188 of the Act against the non-petitioners-defendants in the court of Assistant Collector Sangariya who vide his decision and decree dated 31.8.87 dismissed the suit of the petitioners-plaintiffs and accepted the counter claim of the non-petitioners-defendants. Aggrieved against this order dated 31.8.1987 of Sub-Divisional Officer Sangariya, the petitioner-appellant filed an appeal before Revenue Appellate Authority. During the course of appeal, the petitioner-appellants filed an application under Order 6 Rule 17 of C.P.C. for amendment of pleadings in the plaint. Revenue Appellate Authority vide his order dated 1.6.1996 dismissed this application filed under Order 6 Rule 17 of CPC. Hence the revision. 3. I have heard both the learned counsels. 4. The learned counsel for the petitioners-plaintiffs argued that the petitioners-plaintiffs are seeking khatedari right on the basis of their status as sub-tenant under section 19 of the Act but in the old khasra girdawari it is Nikku Ram whose name is written in the revenue record and not Badru-the father of the petitioners. In fact Nikku Ram and Badru were the real brothers. But Nikku Ram was physically crippled so it was Badru who was doing actual cultivation. The possession of Nikku Ram would be deemed to be the possession of Badru. Hence the name of Nikku Ram as sub-tenant and cultivator of the land has to be included in the plaint and necessary amendments consequent upon the inclusion of the name of Nikku Ram have to be made in the plaint. Citing 1994 RRD 547 it was pleaded that court should take a liberal view in accepting the application for amendment of plaint. 5. Strongly opposing the contentions of the petitioners, the learned counsel for the non-petitioners argued that it is the name of Nikku Ram Bishnoi-who is one of the ancestors of the non-petitioners-defendants -which is recorded in the revenue record as a sub-tenant and not the name of Nikku Suthar as claimed by the petitioner-plaintiffs. 5. Strongly opposing the contentions of the petitioners, the learned counsel for the non-petitioners argued that it is the name of Nikku Ram Bishnoi-who is one of the ancestors of the non-petitioners-defendants -which is recorded in the revenue record as a sub-tenant and not the name of Nikku Suthar as claimed by the petitioner-plaintiffs. It is argued that the original suit is already decided with the dismissal of the suit and acceptance of the counter claim of the non-petitioners. Now the amendment is sought after 8 years which is non permissible under the law. It is argued that by the alleged amendment in the plaint the very nature and character of the suit is changed. As such this should not be allowed. No illegality is committed by Revenue Appellate Authority in not accepting the application of Order 6 Rule 17 of the C.P.C. It is also argued that the impugned order is interim nature and hence not revisable. 6. I have given thoughtful consideration to the rival contentions of the parties, carefully perused the impugned orderand gone through the record available on the file. 7. The original suit, in this case, was filed before Assistant Collector Hanumangarh on 23.5.1984. This suit was dismissed on 31.8.1987. Thereafter appeal against the order of dismissal was filed before Revenue Appellate Authority Srigangangar on 17.9.1987; after this, application for the amendment of the plaint under Order 6 Rule 17 of the C.P.C. was filed at the appellate stage on 27.4.1995. This amendment in the plaint is sought almost 11 years after filing of the suit and almost 8 years after filing of the appeal. Apparently the intended amendment sought is inordinately delayed. The justification given for the delay that the petitioners learnt about the name of Nikku Ram only when he got copies of old khasra girdawari, is untenable in view of the fact that the petitioners-plaintiffs should have been aware of the very basis of filing of the suit for claiming khatedari rights. With regard to the entry of name of Nikku Ram in the khasra girdawaris of the period before commencement of the Tenancy Act, both the parties have rival claims. The petitioner claims that he is Nikku Suthar- the brother of petitioners father Badru. On the contrary the non-petitioners claim that it is Nikku Ram Bishnoi who is one of the ancestors of the non-petitioners. The petitioner claims that he is Nikku Suthar- the brother of petitioners father Badru. On the contrary the non-petitioners claim that it is Nikku Ram Bishnoi who is one of the ancestors of the non-petitioners. Evidently amendment in the plaint by way of inclusion of name of Nikku Ram charges the very basis, nature and character of the suit and as such it cannot be allowed 8 years after filing of appeal and 11 years after filing of suit. 9. It is also worth mentioning here that the order rejecting the application under Order 6 Rule 17 of CPC does not come within the category of `Case decided as envisaged under Section 230 of the Act for exercising revisionary jurisdiction. The case is still pending before Revenue Appellate Authority for final disposal; hence it is not covered under Section 230 of the Act for invoking power of revision. 10. In view of the above discussion and analysis, I do not find any illegality in the impugned order dated 1.6.1996 of Revenue Appellate Authority Hanumangarh. There is neither jurisdictional error nor any material irregularity in the impugned order to warrant any interference. 11. Resultantly, the revision is dismissed, being without any force. Pronounced.