Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2009 DIGILAW 1777 (RAJ)

Arjun v. Mali Ram

2009-08-07

G.K.TIWARI

body2009
TIWARI, M.—This is a revision petition under Section 230 of the Rajasthan Tenancy Act, 1955 (in short `the Act') against the impugned judgment dated 21.5.04 of Revenue Appellate Authority Sikar. 2. Briefly stated, the facts of the case are that during pendency of an appeal before Revenue Appellate Authority Sikar, three applications were filed by the non-petitioner-appellants before Revenue Appellate Authority; one under Order 41 Rule 27 read with Section 151 of the Civil Procedure Code (C.P.C.) and another under Order 1 Rule 10 and Order 6 Rule 17 of the C.P.C. and third under Order 22 Rule 4 of the C.P.C.; all these applications were allowed by the Revenue Appellate Authority by his impugned order dated 21.5.04 aggrieved against which this revision is preferred. 3. I have heard the learned counsels of both the parties. 4. The learned counsel for the petitioner has contended that Ghisa, the respondent No. 1 in the appeal before Revenue Appellate Authority had died long back and as such the entire suit abated but Revenue Appellate Authority illegally allowed legal representatives of the deceased Ghisa to be taken on record under Order 22 Rule 4 of the C.P.C. and under Order 1 Rule 10 of the C.P.C. It was also argued that under Order 41 Rule 27 of the C.P.C. documents are illegally taken on record as the non-petitioners-appellants had failed to produce the same in time before the trial Court. As such the impugned order should be set aside and the appeal should be declared abated. The learned counsel cited 1996 RRD 611 and 2001 RRD 316 in support of his contentions. 5. Opposing the contentions of the petitioner, the learned counsel for the non-petitioners No. 1 & 2 contended that Ghisa had died during proceedings before the trial Court who had already taken legal representatives of Ghisa on record but mistakenly the name of Ghisa not typed in the appeal. One son of Ghisa named Gangu is already made a party, only Soni (wife of Ghisa) who is interested party in the appeal is sought to be impleaded; also the name of Ghisa is sought to be deleted. There is nothing illegal in the order of the trial court by which this prayer of the non-petitioners-appellants is accepted by Revenue Appellate Authority. There is nothing illegal in the order of the trial court by which this prayer of the non-petitioners-appellants is accepted by Revenue Appellate Authority. It was also contended that the trial Court had dismissed the suit under Order 7 Rule 11 of the CPC without giving any opportunity of hearing to the appellants-plaintiffs for filing of any documents; as such it was necessary to file documents under Order 41 Rule 27 of the CPC only. The prayer was rightly allowed by the Revenue Appellate Authority. 6. I have given thoughtful consideration to the rival contentions, perused the impugned order and gone through the record available on the file. 7. As far as contention of the petitioner with regard to the abatement of the appeal before Revenue Appellate Authority is concerned, the appeal is still pending before the Revenue Appellate Authority and he is free to raise this plea before the Revenue Appellate Authority. By the impugned order Revenue Appellate Authority has deleted the name of Ghisa as he was dead even during the proceedings of suit before the trial Court which had already taken legal representatives of the deceased on record. I do not find any illegality in deleting the name of Ghisa. As far as impleading of Soni (wife of Ghisa) is concerned, she is an interested party in the suit land and as such necessary party to be impleaded by the Court. The Revenue Appellate Authority has not committed any illegality in impleading Soni Devi as a respondent. As far as production of documents under Order 41 Rule 27 of the CPC are concerned, the document sought to be produced are all revenue records and as such public documents which are considered necessary by the appellate Court for resolution of the dispute. Secondly the trial Court had dismissed the suit under Order 7 Rule 11 of the CPC as such no opportunity was provided to the non-petitioners-plaintiffs for production of any document before the trial Court. If the appellant wants to present certain public documents/revenue records before the first appellate Court of Revenue Appellate Authority, the opportunity for production of such documents should not be denied. In context of these facts and circumstances Revenue Appellate Authority has rightly allowed the application of Order 41 Rule 27 of the CPC. 8. If the appellant wants to present certain public documents/revenue records before the first appellate Court of Revenue Appellate Authority, the opportunity for production of such documents should not be denied. In context of these facts and circumstances Revenue Appellate Authority has rightly allowed the application of Order 41 Rule 27 of the CPC. 8. In view of the aforesaid discussion, Revenue Appellate Authority Sikar has neither committed any jurisdictional error nor committed any illegality nor acted with material irregularity in passing the impugned judgment; as such there is no force in the revision. 9. Resultantly the revision is dismissed. Pronounced.