Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2009 DIGILAW 1629 (RAJ)

Kishanlal v. Roop Kanwar

2009-07-17

A.K.PUROHIT

body2009
iqjksfgr] lnL;-&;g fuxjkuh jktLFkku mifuos'ku ¼bafnjk xk¡/kh ugj ifj;kstuk {ks= esa jktdh; Hkwfe dk vkoaVu ,oa foØ;½ fu;e] 1975 ds fu;e 23¼2½ ds vUrxZr vfrfjä vk;qä mifuos'ku ,oa jktLo vihy izkf/kdkjh] chdkusj ds vkns'k fnukad 22-01-2009 ds fo:) izLrqr dh xbZ gSA 2- izLrqr izdj.k esa vfrfjä vk;qä mifuos'ku ,oa jktLo vihy izkf/kdkjh] chdkusj ds le{k izLrqr dh xbZ vihy dks nsjh ls is'k djus ds dkj.k orZeku jsLiksaMs.V }kjk vihy dks E;kn esa 'kqekj fd;s tkus ,oa vihy is'k djus esa gqbZ nsjh dks {kek djus gsrq /kkjk 5 E;kn vf/kfu;e dk izkFkZuk i= izLrqr fd;k x;k] ftls fuxjk/khu vkns'k fnukad 22-01-2009 }kjk Lohdkj dj vihy dks izLrqr djus esa gqbZ nsjh dks {kek dj vihy vUnj E;kn ekus tkus dk vkns'k ikfjr fd;k x;k] ftlds fo:) ;g fuxjkuh is'k dh xbZ gSA 3- izkFkhZ ds fo}ku vfHkHkk"kd dk eq[; :i ls rdZ ;g gS fd v/khuLFk vihyh; U;k;ky; ds le{k vihy dks nsjh ls izLrqr djus dk leqfpr ,oa i;kZIr dkj.k ugha Fkk vkSj u gh fdlh dkj.k dk mYys[k fd;k x;k gS fQj Hkh vihy izLrqr djus esa gqbZ nsjh dks {kek dj vihy dks vUnj E;kn ekudj mldk xq.kkoxq.k ij fu.kZ; djus dk vkns'k fof/k fo:) gSA 4- vizkFkhZ ds fo}ku~ vfHkHkk"kd dk rdZ gS fd v/khuLFk vihyh; U;k;ky; }kjk /kkjk 3 dkuwu E;kn ds izkFkZuk i= dks eatwj dj vihy dks vanj E;kn ekuus ds vkns'k ds fo:) izLrqr dh xbZ fuxjkuh esa gLr{ksi dk dksbZ mfpr dkj.k ugha gS rFkk bl fuxjkuh esa izFke vihyh; U;k;ky; }kjk Lofoosd dk fof/kor~ :i ls mi;ksx fd;k tkdj ikfjr fd;s x;s vkns'k ds fo:) ;g fuxjkuh fujLr fd;s tkus ;ksX; gSA 5- geus nksuksa i{kksa ds fo}ku vfHkHkk"kdx.k ds rdZ lqusaA fuxjk/khu vkns'k ,oa i=koyh dk Hkh HkyhHkkafr voyksdu fd;kA 6- bl izdj.k esa izFke vihyh; U;k;ky; }kjk /kkjk 5 E;kn vf/kfu;e ds lEcU/k esa ikfjr fd;s x;s vkns'k ds fo:) bl fuxjkuh esa D;k gLr{ksi fd;k tkuk U;k;ksfpr gS\ bl dkuwuh egRoiw.kZ dkuwuh iz'u dk fu.kZ; bl U;k;ky; }kjk fd;k tkuk gSA ^^vCnqy xQkj cuke xoklflag** ds izdj.k ¼,vkbZvkj 1967 iVuk ist 361 Qqy cSap½ esa ;g O;oLFkk nh xbZ gS fd ;fn fdlh l{ke U;k;ky; us vius lofoosd dk mi;ksx djrs gq, /kkjk 5 dkuwu E;kn ds rgr nsjh dks {kek fd;k gks rks dsoy bl vk/kkj ij mä vkns'k ds fo:) fuxjkuh esa gLr{ksi ugha fd;k tk ldrk fd vihyh; U;k;ky; us nsjh dks {kek djus ds dkj.kksa dk vius vkns'k esa mYys[k ugha fd;k gSA blh izdkj ^^Thandhyuthapani Sthhuran vs. Chinathal (AIR 1914 Nadras Oage 149) esa Hkh ;g O;oLFkk nh xbZ gS fd /kkjk 5 dkuwu E;kn ds rgr nsjh dks {kek djus ds ckcr~ fj;wt+ fd;s tkus ds vkns'k ds fo:) fuxjkuh iks"k.kh; ugha gSA blh izdkj ds fopkj ^^jk/kk—".kk fQyEl izk-fy- ¼,-vkbZ-vkj- 1092 ist 124½ ,oa "Maindra Land & Building Corporation Ltd. (AIR 1964 SC Page 1336)" esa ntZ fd;s x;s gSA 7- mijksä vafdr lHkh fu.kZ;ksa ij fopkj djrs gq, jktLo e.My }kjk ^^eq- HkSjh cuke ljdkj** fjohtu fiVh'ku ua- 293@dksVk@79 dk tks fnukad 18-2-1984 ¼vkj-vkj-Mh- 1984 ist 232½ dks fu.kZ; fd;k x;k gS] esa tks ^^fl)kUr izfrikfnr fd;k x;k gS] og bl izdkj gS %& "Raj. Tenancy Act, Sec. 230 — Limitation Act, Secs. 5 & 3 — Revision against order of R.A.A. dismissing appeal holding that reasons, given in application u/Sec. 5 not satisfactory — Held, order, passed u/Sec. 5 cannot be interfered in revision. 1954 RLW 80 & 731, 1976 RRD 501, 1979 RRD 296 and RRD 1979 NUC 55 have not decided the question reg. the maintainability of a revision against an order of the Court below, rejecting an application u/Sec. 5. 1983 RRD 9, discussed. There are decisions in which it has been held that an order passed u/Sec. 5 cannot be interferred in revision. AIR 1967 Patna 360 (F.B.). AIR 1914 Madras 149, AIR 1972 Kerala 122 (wherein AIR 1964 SC 1336 , followed) readwith decision in 1978 RRD 305 make it clear that in view of the imperative mandate of Sec. 3 that a time barred appeal cannot be allowed a fresh lese of life and is to be dismissed, sicretion exercised by he first appellate Court in condoning the delay or refusing to condone the same on application u/Sec. 5 is not open to revision u/Sec. 230. Revision dismissed." 8- vkjvkjMh 1979 ist 296 ^^calrflag cuke ljdkj** esa nsjh dks {kek djus lEcU/kh tks O;oLFkk nh xbZ gS] og bl izdkj gS %& "(b) Limitation — Appeal — Condonation of delay — Appellant made sufficiently strong case for condonation of delay on account of faulty service effected on his son as well as on ground of illness of himself and his informer duty supported by Medical certificates — In absence of any contrary evidence, no reason to disbelieve such document — Appeal, held within limitation." 9- vizkFkhZ ds fo}ku vfHkHkk"kd us bl U;k;ky; }kjk fuxjkuh@dksyks@1561@ 2009@chdkusj ^^cq)kjke cuke nsohyky ds izdj.k esa bl oS/kkfud fcUnq ij ikfjr fd;s x;s fu.kZ; dh QksVks izfr is'k dh gS ftlesa ,dyihB ds lnL; us vius fu.kZ; fnukad 09-03-2009 esa /kkjk 5 dkuwu E;kn ds vUrxZr izLrqr izkFkZuk i= ij ikfjr vkns'k ds fo:) fuxjkuh dks iks"k.kh; ¼maintainable½ ugha ekurs gq, vihy fujLr dh gSA 10- mijksä fofu'p;ksa ds ifjis{; esa bl izdj.k ij fopkj djus ds mijkUr ;g ik;k x;k fd izFke vihyh; U;k;ky; vfrfjä vk;qä mifuos'ku ,oa jktLo vihy izkf/kdkjh] chdkusj }kjk muds le{k izLrqr dh xbZ vihy esa gqbZ nsjh dks {kek djrs gq, /kkjk 5 E;kn vf/kfu;e ds izkFkZuk i= dks Lohdkj dj vihy dks vUnj E;kn ekurs gq, xq.kkoxq.k ij vihy ds fuLrkj.k dk tks vkns'k ikfjr fd;k x;k gS] ge mlesa fdlh izdkj dh voS/kkfudrk rFkk {ks=kf/kdkj lEcU/kh =qfV ugha ikrs gSA 11- ifj.kkeLo:i ;g fuxjkuh fujLr dh tkrh gS rFkk vfrfjä vk;qä mifuos'ku ,oa jktLo vihy vf/kdkjh] chdkusj dk vkns'k fnukad 22-01-2009 ;Fkkor~ j[kk tkrk gSA nksuksa i{kdkjksa ds fo}ku vfHkHkk"kdksa dks fgnk;r nh tkrh gS fd os v/khuLFk U;k;ky; ds le{k fnukad 4-8-2009 dks mifLFkr gksa] tgka lHkh i{kdkjksa dh mifLFkr lqfuf'pr dh tkdj v/khuLFk U;k;ky; vihy dk xq.kkoxq.k ij fuLrkj.k djsaxsA fu.kZ; [kqys U;k;ky; esa lquk;k x;kA