Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2013 DIGILAW 782 (RAJ)

LR’s of Shyam Kaur v. State of Rajasthan

2013-04-18

VINEET KOTHARI

body2013
JUDGMENT 1. - By the impugned order dated 18.10.2012 (Annex. 4) and the review order dated 11.3.2013 (Annex. 6), the learned Single Member of the Board of Revenue, dismissed the revision petition filed by the petitioners as having become infructuous, which was filed against the rejection of her temporary injunction application under Section 212 of the Rajasthan Tenancy Act, 1955, (for short, hereinafter referred to as 'Act of 1955) in a suit filed by the petitioners' mother late Shyam Kaur for declaration under Sections 88, 53 and 188 of the Act of 1955, since the application seeking temporary injunction filed alongwith main suit itself came to be rejected by the learned S.D.O. vide its order dated 23.2.2005 and thereafter the appeal against that order, was also dismissed by the learned Revenue Appellate Authority, Sri Ganganagar, vide its order dated 12.9.2006. 2. During the pendency of the revision before the learned Board of Revenue, since the main suit itself came to be dismissed by the learned S.D.O., Srikaranpur vide order dated 21.4.2008, therefore, the revision petition filed before the Board of Revenue and pending at that point of time on 21.4.2008 was dismissed as infructuous on 18.10.2012. The petitioners even though filed review petition, which also came to be dismissed by the learned Single Member of the Board of Revenue vide order Annex. 6 dated 11.3.2013. The relevant extract of both the orders are quoted below: " vizkFkhZ ds vf/koDrk ds izkFkZuk i= ij i=koyh vkns'k gsrq is'k gqbZA izkFkZuk i= ij mHk; i{k ds vf/koDrkx.kksa dh cgl lquh xbZA vizkFkhZ ds vf/koDrk us fuosnu fd;k fd bl fuxjkuh ls lacaf/kr ewy okn dk fuLrkj.k fnukad 21-4-2008 dks gks pqdk gSA QyLo:i ;g fuxjkuh lkjghu gks pqdh gSA izkFkhZ ds vf/koDrk Hkh bl rF; ij lger gSA vr% bl fuxjkuh ls lacaf/kr ewy okn " ';ke dkSj ,oa vU; cuke~ ljtj ,oa vU; " dk fu.kZ; fnukad 21-4-2008 ds gks tkus ls ;g fuxjkuh izHkkoghu gks xbZ gSA QyLo:i ;g fuxjkuh izHkkoghu (infructuous) gks tkus ls [kkfjt dh tkrh gSA i=koyh fuf.kZr bUnzkt dh tkdj] ckn vko';d dk;Zokgh] vfHkys[kkxkj esa Hksth tkosA vkns'k [kqys U;k;ky; esa lquk;k x;kA Sd/- ( ctjax yky 'kekZ ) lnL; " Relevant portion of order dated 11.3.2013 "4. Indisputably, the Suit No. 16/2004 filed by the petitioner Shyam Kaur has been decided on merits by Sub-Divisional Officer, Srikaranpur on 21.4.2008. Indisputably, the Suit No. 16/2004 filed by the petitioner Shyam Kaur has been decided on merits by Sub-Divisional Officer, Srikaranpur on 21.4.2008. This is also factually true that the petitioner has filed an appeal against the judgment passed by Sub-Divisional Officer, Srikaranpur on 21.4.2008 before Revenue Appellate Authority, Sriganganagar which is pending as on today. The main contention of the learned advocate for the petitioner is that Shyam Kaur is dead, therefore, her legal representatives should have been brought on record first and when the appeal has been filed against the judgment passed by the trial Court dated 21.4.2008, the revision petition should not have been dismissed being infructuous. His contention is that the appeal is continuation of the suit and this revision petition was maintainable before this Court even after the decision of the trial Court. Therefore, there has been an error apparent on the record committed by this Court. Hence, this review petition be accepted. 5. In considered opinion of this Court, the original suit filed by the petitioner Shyam Kaur has been decided by the Sub-Divisional Officer on 21.4.2008 and the revision petition before this Court was pending for the matter pertaining to temporary injunction in this case. When the original suit has been decided, the revision petition pertaining to the temporary injunction loses its relevance and became infructuous. Therefore, in view of this Court nor error apparent on the face has been committed by this Court. As far as the legal representatives of the deceased Shyam Kaur are concerned, they have been taken on record in this application." 3. From the reasons given in the impugned order, it is clear that the revision petition filed before the learned Board of Revenue has rightly been dismissed as having become infructuous. There is no apparent error in the same and therefore, no review of the same was called for and the learned Board of Revenue had rightly dismissed the review petition filed by the petitioners vide order dated 11.3.2013. 4. Having heard the learned counsel for the petitioner, this Court finds no force in the present writ petition and the orders impugned do not call for any interference under Article 227 or the Constitution of India. 5. Consequently, the present writ petition filed by the petitioners LR's of Shyam Kaur, is hereby dismissed. No costs. 4. Having heard the learned counsel for the petitioner, this Court finds no force in the present writ petition and the orders impugned do not call for any interference under Article 227 or the Constitution of India. 5. Consequently, the present writ petition filed by the petitioners LR's of Shyam Kaur, is hereby dismissed. No costs. A copy of this order be sent to the concerned parties and the revenue Courts below forthwith.Petition Dismissed. *******