Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2011 DIGILAW 1799 (RAJ)

Chandani v. Sohani Bai

2011-08-24

G.K.TIWARI

body2011
Dr. TIWARI, M.—The petitioner, through this review petition, under Section 229 of the Rajasthan Tenancy Act 1955 (in short `the Act'), seeks review of the judgment dated 6.6.2003 of the learned Single Bench of this court passed in Revision/TA/103/2003/Chittorgarh. 2. Brief facts of the case are that the non-petitioner No. 1 Sohani Bai filed a revision petition under Section 230 of the Act against the judgment dated 10.4.2003 of Revenue Appellate Authority, whereby Revenue Appellate Authority had rejected the application of Order 6 Rule 17 of the Civil Procedure Code (C.P.C.) filed before him. The learned Single Bench of this Court set aside the impugned judgment dated 10.4.2003 by its impugned judgment dated 6.6.2003. Simultaneously the Single Bench of this court also set aside the judgment dated 26.6.2002 of Sub-Divisional Officer Nimbahera passed in a suit filed under section 53 of the Act. Aggrieved against the judgment dated 6.6.2003 of this court, the present review petition is filed. 3. I have heard the learned counsels of both the parties. 4. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that earlier the suit was filed before Sub-Divisional Officer on the basis of inheritance of the deceased Nanda: but subsequently claim in the disputed land was sought not on the basis of inheritance of Nanda but on the basis of inheritance of the father of Nanda- the deceased Onkar. This changes the nature of the suit so Revenue Appellate Authority rightly rejected the application of Order 6 Rule 17 of the C.P.C. But the learned Single Bench of this Court has illegally allowed it. It was also pleaded that learned Single Bench quashed the judgment and decree dated 26.6.2002 of Sub-Divisional Officer Nimbahera passed in a suit filed under Section 53 of the Act. Firstly, a judgment and decree cannot be set aside in revision; secondly the judgment dated 26.6.2002 of Sub-Divisional Officer was not the subject-matter of revision which was directed against the order passed in an application of Order 6 Rule 17 of the CPC only. Therefore, this review petition should be accepted and the impugned order should be set aside and revision be allowed. 5. Opposing the contentions of the petitioner, the learned counsel for the non-petitioners submitted that there is no error apparent on the face of record. All these arguments were already raised earlier in revision which stands decided. Therefore, this review petition should be accepted and the impugned order should be set aside and revision be allowed. 5. Opposing the contentions of the petitioner, the learned counsel for the non-petitioners submitted that there is no error apparent on the face of record. All these arguments were already raised earlier in revision which stands decided. Even an erroneous judgment cannot be reviewed under Section 229 of the Act. So this review petition has no force. 6. I have given thoughtful consideration to the rival contentions, perused the impugned judgment and gone through the material on record. 7. So far as the judgment of this court pertaining to acceptance of the application of Order 6 Rule 17 of the CPC is concerned, there is conscious application of mind and the judgment is given after having heard both the parties. The learned counsel has raised the same arguments against acceptance of this application of Order 6 Rule 17 of the CPC which were already raised, heard and decided vide the impugned judgment dated 6.6.2003. Apart from it, the learned counsel has not brought out any error apparent on the face of record with regard to the judgment given by this court about the application of Order 6 Rule 17 of the CPC. 8. However, perusal of the impugned judgment dated 6.6.2003 shows that the learned Single Bench has also set aside the judgment dated 26.6.2002 of Sub-Divisional Officer Nimbahera, which was not the subject-matter of the revision. A judgment and decree passed under Section 53 of the Act by Sub-Divisional Officer cannot be set aside in a revision particularly when this judgment dated 26.6.2002 was not challenged before the Single Bench of this court. Apparently setting aside of the judgment dated 26.6.2002 of Sub-Divisional Officer Nimbahera is an error apparent on the face of record and as such the pertinent line in the judgment ^^rFkk mi[k.M vf/kdkjh fuEckgsM+k dk fu.kZ; fnukad 26-6-2002 fujLr fd;s tkrs gS** deserves to be deleted. 9. In view of the foregoing discussion, the review petition succeeds partially. The impugned judgment dated 6.6.2003 is reviewed and the line in para 6 of the impugned judgment ^^rFkk mi[k.M vf/kdkjh fuEckgsM+k dk fu.kZ; fnukad 26-6-2002 fujLr fd;s tkrs gS** is deleted. Rest of the judgment about the acceptance of the application of Order 6 Rule 17 of the CPC is retained. The impugned judgment dated 6.6.2003 stands modified accordingly. The impugned judgment dated 6.6.2003 is reviewed and the line in para 6 of the impugned judgment ^^rFkk mi[k.M vf/kdkjh fuEckgsM+k dk fu.kZ; fnukad 26-6-2002 fujLr fd;s tkrs gS** is deleted. Rest of the judgment about the acceptance of the application of Order 6 Rule 17 of the CPC is retained. The impugned judgment dated 6.6.2003 stands modified accordingly. Pronounced.