Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2010 DIGILAW 1966 (RAJ)

Darshan Singh v. Harbhajan Kaur

2010-11-25

G.K.TIWARI

body2010
TIWARI, M.—This is a revision petition under Section 230 of the Rajasthan Tenancy Government, 1955 (in short `the Act') against the impugned order dated 15.12.2007 of Revenue Appellate Authority, Sriganganagar. 2. The facts, in brief, leading to the revision are the petitioner had filed a suit for declaration of khatedar right and grant of perpetual injunction in respect of disputed land against the non-petitioners defendants under Section 88, 91, 92-A and 188 of the Act in the Court of Sub-Divisional Officer Ghasrsana who allowed the suit and issued decree vide his judgment dated 28.6.2007 against which the non-petitioners preferred first appeal under Section 223 of the Act before Revenue Appellate Authority, Sriganganagar. While registering the appeal, Revenue Appellate Authority passed the ex-parte impugned order dated 15.12.2007 restraining the sale or mortgage of the disputed land till the next date of hearing which was fixed on 30.1.2008. Aggrieved against this order of Revenue Appellate Authority, the petitioner has filed the present revision petition in this Court. 3. I have heard the learned counsel for both the parties. 4. The learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the impugned order is passed ex-parte whereas the petitioner is a decree holder from the Trial Court. The appeal before Revenue Appellate Authority was time barred; so without condoning the delay under Order 41 Rule 30-A of the Civil Procedure Code, Revenue Appellate Authority should not have passed the impugned order which is illegal and as such must be set aside. 5. The learned counsel for the non-petitioner contended that it is an interim order against which revision is to maintainable. Besides it, the term of the impugned order was only up to the next date of hearing i.e. 30.1.2008. So this revision has become infructuous. 6. I have given thoughtful consideration to the rival contentions, perused the impugned order and gone through the material on record. 7. It is apparent from perusal of the impugned order dated 15.12.2007 that it was valid only upto 30.1.2008. Revenue Appellate Authority has passed an ex-parte order of injunction against sale and mortgage of the disputed lands till the next date of hearing which was fixed on 30.1.2008. Evidently this date stood lapsed long back and today this order is no longer in force. There is no prima facie evidence produced to the effect that this impugned order was further extended beyond 30.1.2008. Evidently this date stood lapsed long back and today this order is no longer in force. There is no prima facie evidence produced to the effect that this impugned order was further extended beyond 30.1.2008. Thus, this revision petition is directed against an order which is no longer in existence. The revision petition, therefore, has become infructuous. However the main grievance of the petitioner is that the order is passed without affording him an opportunity of hearing. This grouse of the petitioner for hearing may now be addressed by the Revenue Appellate Authority, Sriganganagar where the appeal is still pending. 8. In view of the afore-mentioned discussion, this revision is dismissed being infructuous. However, the Revenue Appellate Authority, Sriganganagar is directed to pass an appropriate order with regard to the mater in controversy only after affording opportunity of hearing to both the contending parties. Pronounced.