Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2008 DIGILAW 1796 (RAJ)

Mangi Lal v. Chhittar

2008-07-29

G.K.TIWARI

body2008
Honble TIWARI, M.—This is a revision petition under Section 230 of the Rajasthan Tenancy Act, 1955 (in short `the Act) against the impugned order dated 23.6.06 of Revenue Appellate Authority Jaipur by which he declined to grant ex-parte temporary injunction without hearing the respondents in the appeal filed before him. Aggrieved against this order dated 23.6.06 this revision is filed. 2. Briefly stated, the facts leading to the revision are that the petitioners-plaintiffs filed a suit under sections 88 and 188 of the Act against the non-petitioners-defendants. During the course of trial of the suit non-petitioners-defendants filed an application under Order 7 Rule 11 of the CPC which was accepted by the trial Court by its order dated 12.6.06 which was challenged in appeal before the Revenue Appellate Authority. During the course of the appeal, the petitioners-appellants filed an application under Section 212 of the Act to grant ex-parte temporary injunction. Revenue Appellate Authority did not acceed to the prayer for grant of ex-parte temporary injunction without hearing the opponents vide his impugned order dated 23.6.06, aggrieved against which this revision is filed. 3. I have heard both the learned counsels. 4. The learned counsel for the petitioners has argued that the impugned order is interlocutory order which would occasion failure of justice and would cause irreparable injury to the petitioners. Hence the impugned order be quashed and ex-parte temporary injunction should be granted. The learned counsel cited 1982 RLW 229, 2006 AIR (HP) 47 and 1984 AIR (Raj.) 1 in support of his contention. It is also stated that the petitioners are in constant possession of the suit land; hence temporary injunction should be granted in their favour. 5. Vehemently countering the arguments of the petitioners, the learned counsel for the non-petitioners argued that Sub-Divisional Officer rightly considered the suit as barred by law under Order 7 Rule 11of the CPC as an entry in revenue record dating back to 42 years is called in question now. It is also pleaded that the citations produced by the petitioners are with reference to section 115 of the CPC which is excluded from the gambit of the Act. It is also argued that the impugned order is interim order against which no revision is maintainable. He cited 2002 RRD 313, 2001 RRT (1) 654 in support of his contention. It is also pleaded that the citations produced by the petitioners are with reference to section 115 of the CPC which is excluded from the gambit of the Act. It is also argued that the impugned order is interim order against which no revision is maintainable. He cited 2002 RRD 313, 2001 RRT (1) 654 in support of his contention. It is also contended that the impugned order does not fall within the category of `case decided; hence no revision is maintainable, as held in 1995 RRD 490. 6. I have given thoughtful consideration to the rivial contentions, carefully gone through the impugned order dated 23.6.06 and perused the record available on the file. 7. It is evident from the perusal of the impugned order dated 23.6.06 of Revenue Appellate Authority Jaipur that he has declined to grant ex-parte temporary injunction without hearing opposite party on the ground that there was no sufficient matrial of evidence on record to justify issuance of ex-parte temporary injunction. The learned Revenue Appellate Authority has opted to hear the opposite party and peruse the record before grant of temporary injunction. Apparently this is an interim order and by this order no case has been decided. In fact the case for grant of temporary injunction is still pending before Revenue Appellate Authority; hence this is not covered under the category of `case decided as envisaged under the provision of section 230 of the Act to exercise revisionary power. It is held in 1989 RRD 405 and 1995 RRD 492 that when impugned order does not fall within the category of `a case decided revision is not maintainable. In addition to this, the impugned order is purely an interim order against which no revision is maintainable as held in 2002 RRD 313, 2001 RRT (1) 654, 2005 RRT (1) 498, 2005 RRT (2) 804 and 2006(1) RRT 637. 8. In the result, the revision fails and it is dismissed accordngly. Pronounced.