Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2006 DIGILAW 60 (RAJ)

Yadram v. Ramnarain Mali

2006-01-04

R.N.ARVIND

body2006
ARVIND, MEMBER — This is a revision petition under section 230 of the Rajasthan Tenancy Act, 1955 against the order dated 27.4.2002 of learned Asstt. Collector, Behror passed in Case No. 185/98 on the application for setting aside ex-parte order. His request was rejected by learned Asstt. Collector. This is a revision petition against that order. (2). Arguing in support of the petition, the contention of the learned advocate on behalf of the petitioner is that since the criminal proceedings were continuing between the petitioner and his son; hence he was disturbed and could not get no attention for knowledge of the suit pending before learned Asstt. Collector. He also argued that he made an application before learned Asstt. Collector for setting aside the order and he has also given in affidavit in support of the application saying that he had, no knowledge of the proceedings between the parties and as soon as it came within his knowledge he approached the Court of learned Asstt. Collector and requested for setting aside the ex-parte order against the petitioner. The petitioner had been impleaded as defendant No. 14 before the learned Trial Court but no proper service was ensured. Learned Asstt. Collector, Behror accept the contention and request and as such the order of learned Asstt. Collector is unjust and improper and needs to be set aside. (3). Arguing against the petition, the contention of the learned advocate on behalf of the non-petitioners is that the contention of the petitioner is not only incorrect but also manipulated because about nine persons were parties to the proceedings from the same caste-creed and ancestors as such pleading ignorance is only an excuse. No evidence has been produced regarding criminal proceedings between the father and the son. He also argued that a suit had been pending before learned Asstt. Collector since the year 1998 and ex-parte proceedings were ordered on 28.1.99 and after a long lapse of time of about 4 years the petitioner approached the Trial Court for setting aside the ex-parte order. He also contended that the application is not genuine and this petition needs to be rejected with heavy costs. (4). Collector since the year 1998 and ex-parte proceedings were ordered on 28.1.99 and after a long lapse of time of about 4 years the petitioner approached the Trial Court for setting aside the ex-parte order. He also contended that the application is not genuine and this petition needs to be rejected with heavy costs. (4). Having heard the parties and having seen the contents of the matter and having perused the application and the affidavits given before the Trial Court by the petitioner, we come to the following conclusions:— (a) We find that the petitioner has overwritten the date of knowledge and as such his claim of the date of knowledge has become doubtful, as such he has failed to mention the proper source of information and failed to give correct date of information about the knowledge of the case pending against him before the Trial Court. (b) When such an application was made at a very belated stage and specially in a case when the evidence of both the plaintiffs and defendants had been completed and where the number of defendants is very large, then in such a situation it cannot be believed that amongst about a dozen of the people of the same village it could be a hidden secret that the case is pending or not pending between the parties. (c) In view of the consensus reached during the course of arguments that in the interest of preventing further delay the non-petitioner No. 1 has opted to accede to the request of awarding one more opportunity to the petitioner-respondent if a heavy cost is levied. (d) Relief has been sought by the petitioner who is the defendant No. 14 in the suit pending with the Trial Court. Non- petitioner No. 1 is the sole plaintiff in the suit. As such appearance of the plaintiff is sufficient as he is the only aggrieved person as the dispute is between non-petitioner No. 1 and the petitioner No. 14 in this matter. (5). In view of the conclusions and the circumstances of this case and in the interest of justice and to give the benefit of doubt to the petitioner it is ordered that this petition is accepted but with a heavy cost. The petitioner will pay Rs. 2000/- to the plaintiff-non-petitioner Ramnarain. The cost is to be paid before learned Trial Court. In view of the conclusions and the circumstances of this case and in the interest of justice and to give the benefit of doubt to the petitioner it is ordered that this petition is accepted but with a heavy cost. The petitioner will pay Rs. 2000/- to the plaintiff-non-petitioner Ramnarain. The cost is to be paid before learned Trial Court. The plaintiff-non-petitioner has reached the age of about 76 years and it is desirable that the matter of such senior citizens are decided expeditiously. The Trial Court will give one last opportunity to the petitioner (defendant No. 14) to file written statement within a period of two months from today and two opportunities to lead evidence within 3 months from today. As such the Trial Court would try to complete the proceedings positively within a period of six months from today. The cost will be paid in the Trial Court and it is also ordered that in case it is not paid within one month of this order then this revision petition will be treated as having been rejected and the impugned order of the Trial Court will remain in force. Parties to attend the Court of learned Asstt. Collector, Behror on 10.2.2006. This case is to be completed within a period of six months from today. As such, this revision petition is admitted and accepted with the conditions mentioned above at the level of admission. Pronounced.