Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2008 DIGILAW 2515 (RAJ)

Ram Prasad v. Mahaveer

2008-11-14

G.K.TIWARI

body2008
Judgment 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 24.5.07 of Tehsildar Keshoraipatan. 2. Facts, in brief, leading to the revision are that the petitioner filed an application under Section 183-B of the Act against the non-petitioners for their ejectment from his khatedari holding, in the court of Tehsildar Keshoraipatan (District Bundi). During the course of proceedings, an application was presented by the non-petitioners for staying of proceedings of application under Section 183-B of the Act, under Section 10 of the CPC on the ground that a regular suit No. 32/06 was pending in the court of Sub-Divisional Officer Keshoraipatan; whereupon Tehsildar vide his impugned order dated 24.5.07 stayed the action on application filed under section 183-B of the Act. Aggrieved against the impugned order of 24.5.07, this revision is preferred before the Board of Revenue. 3. I have heard the learned counsel for both the parties. 4. The learned counsel for the petitioner argued that section 10 of the CPC is applicable only on suits and not on applications. Since the matter pending consideration before Tehsildar is under Section 183-B of the Act which is an application, the provisions of Sec. 10 of the C.P.C. are not attracted. It is also argued that if at all any case is to be stayed; it is later instituted case which is to be stayed and no the earlier instituted case. The application under Section 183-B of the Act was filed before Tehsildar on 3.9.05 whereas the alleged suit before the Sub-Divisional Officer was filed in the year 2006. As such if any case is to be stayed it is later suit No. 32/06 and not the earlier filed application under consideration. The learned counsel for the petitioner cited 1996 RRD 120 and 2004(2) RBJ 244 = RLW 2004 RJ 565 in support of his contention. 5. Countering the arguments of the petitioner, the learned counsel for the non-petitioners pleaded that Tehsildar rightly stayed proceedings under Section 10 of the CPC to avoid any contradictory decision in respect of the same subject matter of dispute between the same parties. As such there is nothing wrong in the impugned order of Tehsildar. 6. 5. Countering the arguments of the petitioner, the learned counsel for the non-petitioners pleaded that Tehsildar rightly stayed proceedings under Section 10 of the CPC to avoid any contradictory decision in respect of the same subject matter of dispute between the same parties. As such there is nothing wrong in the impugned order of Tehsildar. 6. I have given thoughtful consideration to the rival contentions, perused the impugned order dated 24.5.07 of Tehsildar Keshoraipatan and carefully gone through the record available on the file. 7. It is evident by perusal of the record that the application under section 183-B of the Act was filed before Tehsildar on 3.9.05 whereas a regular suit pertaining to the same dispute between the same parties was filed before Sub-Divisional Officer Keshoraipatan in the year 2006. This, the application under Section 183-B of the Act was filed prior to filing of the suit. Tehsildar stayed action on the application which was filed before him much before filing of the suit in the court of Sub-Divisional Officer. If any proceeding at all is to be stayed, it is proceeding of later instituted case rather than that of prior instituted one. Further it is worth mentioning in this regard that section 10 of the CPC applies only to the suit and not to the application. Section 10 of the C.P.C. runs as follows:- "10. Stay of suit."10. Stay of suit.-No court shall proceed with the trial of any suit in which the matter in issue is also directly and substantially in issue in a previously instituted suit between the same parties, or between parties under whom they or any of them claim litigating under the same title where such suit is pending in the same of any other court in (India) having jurisdiction to grant the relief claimed, or in any court beyond the limits of (India) established or continued by (the Central Government (***) and having like jurisdiction, or before (the Supreme Court.)'' Perusal of the above provision makes it abundantly clear that it is applicable only on suit and not on application. Provisions of Section 183-B of the Act are of summary nature meant for providing speedy trial and justice to the deprived member of Scheduled Castes or Scheduled Tribes by way of filing application before Tehsildar. Provisions of Section 183-B of the Act are of summary nature meant for providing speedy trial and justice to the deprived member of Scheduled Castes or Scheduled Tribes by way of filing application before Tehsildar. This provides for summary ejectment of trespasser of the land held by a khatedar tenant who is the member of Scheduled Caste or Scheduled Tribe. As such, it is not proper and just to withhold the proceedings initiated under Section 183-B of the Act by misconstruing provision of section 10 of the CPC which is not applicable in respect of an application. I am fortified in holding this view by 1996 RRD 120 and 2004(2) RBJ 244. 8. In the result, the revision succeeds and it is allowed accordingly. The impugned order dated 24.5.07 of Tehsildar Keshorapiatan is, hereby, quashed. Pronounced.