Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2012 DIGILAW 869 (RAJ)

Ghisa Ram v. Board of Revenue

2012-04-09

ALOK SHARMA

body2012
Hon'ble SHARMA, J.—This petition has been filed against the order dated 7.5.2003, passed by the Board of Revenue in an appeal under Section 224 of the Rajasthan Tenancy Act, 1955 (hereinafter `the Act of 1955') as also against the order dated 9.2.2011, passed by the Board of Revenue dismissing a review petition there-against filed under Section 229 of the Act of 1955. 2. I have heard the counsel for the petitioners and also perused the impugned orders passed by the Board of Revenue. 3. The Board of Revenue in an appeal under Section 224 of the Act of 1955 set aside the order dated 16.6.2000 passed by the RAA condoning the delay in filing an appeal against the order dated 27.11.1997. The Board of Revenue held that the RAA had casually condoned the delay of over one year in the filing of the appeal against the judgment and decree dated 27.11.1997 overlooking the fact that no sufficient cause had been shown by the appellants for not filing the appeal in time and on the contrary the only cause shown for filing a belated appeal was absolutely false and contrary to the record. It was found by the Board of Revenue that while the appellants stated that the dismissal of the application under Section 212 of the Act of 1955 as laid by the plaintiffs-respondents had been taken to be as a dismissal of the suit itself and they had thereafter not participated in the proceedings before the trial court it was on record that after the dismissal of the application under Section 212 of the Act of 1955 on 8.1.1991, the appellants defendants had in fact participated in the proceedings, filed written statement to the suit and also cross-examined the plaintiff's witnesses. The Board of Revenue held that the reasons for condonation of delay in filing the appeal after a period of one year from the judgment and decree dated 27.11.1997 were ex facie false and without sufficient cause and consequently the appellate authority exercised its jurisdiction casually and perversely found sufficient cause for condonation of delay in filing the appeal. So holding the Board of Revenue set aside the order of the RAA passed on 16.6.2000. 4. So holding the Board of Revenue set aside the order of the RAA passed on 16.6.2000. 4. I have perused both the order of the Board of Revenue passed in second appeal under Section 224 of the Act of 1955 on 7.5.2003 as also the further order passed in review petition under Section 229 of the Act 1955 on 9.2.2011. 5. Proceedings before the Courts are to be without exception bona fide and diligently pursued. Casualness further distorted by falsity cannot be the manner of proceedings before the court either revenue or civil. Tolerance of false causes set up either by the plaintiffs or the defendants in pursuit of "interest of justice" varyingly defined by contesting parties aggregate in the whole to a situation of underlying disregard of the purity of the judicial process. This disregard will entail the destruction of a foundational concept for a peaceful, harmonious and progressive society and country. It is on record that the appellants have approached the RAA with a false case as apparent from the record of the trial court and sought condonation of delay on manufactured grounds which were ex-facie false. I find no ground to exercise the equitable jurisdiction of this Court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India in view of the conduct of the petitioners and the facts of the case. 6. Consequently, the present petition is without force and the same is dismissed. Stay application is also dismissed.