Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2014 DIGILAW 1990 (RAJ)

Trilok Chand v. Ghashi Ram

2014-12-04

ALOK SHARMA

body2014
JUDGMENT 1. - A challenge has been made to the judgment dated 28-10-2014 passed by the Board of Revenue (hereinafter 'the Board'), whereby the Board has set aside the order dated 11-9-2003 passed by the Revenue Appellate Authority Sikar. 2. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the order dated 28-10-2014 passed by the Board. 3. The reason which prevailed with the Board in passing the impugned judgment was that the Revenue Appellate Authority (RAA)had entertained the appeal beyond the statutory period of limitation even though it was not accompanied by an application for condonation of delay under Section 5 of the Limitation Act. The Board also noted the fact that the appellant before the RAA (now the petitioner) was not a party in the suit for declaration of khatedari rights under Sections 88 and 91 of the Rajasthan Tenancy Act,1955, decreed by the Sub Divisional Officer Sikar on 23-7-2002, yet an appeal at his instance without deciding/ allowing the application for leave to appeal against the decree of dated 23-7-2002 was entertained. On the aforesaid findings of illegalities/ irregularities committed by the RAA, the Board has set aside its order and remanded the matter to the RAA directing that the application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963 for condonation of delay (apparently to be now filed) and the application for leave to appeal under Section 96 of the CPC, 1908 be first decided before the appeal be addressed, if at all, on merits. 4. Mr. Sudesh Bansal, learned counsel for the petitioner has not been able to satisfy this court as to how the findings of the Board with regard to belated appeal being decided without an application for condonation of delay having been filed or allowed, while the application for leave to appeal under Section 96 CPC also remained pending are perverse or even erroneous. He has however submitted that the grounds which prevailed with the Board in setting aside the judgment 11-9-2003 passed by the RAA were hyper technical in nature and have resulted in substantial injustice. He submitted that the RAA had vide its judgment dated 11-9-2003 rightly set aside an unjust and collusive decree in the suit for declaration of khatedari rights. He has however submitted that the grounds which prevailed with the Board in setting aside the judgment 11-9-2003 passed by the RAA were hyper technical in nature and have resulted in substantial injustice. He submitted that the RAA had vide its judgment dated 11-9-2003 rightly set aside an unjust and collusive decree in the suit for declaration of khatedari rights. Counsel further submitted that in view of decision in the appeal on merits by the RAA, the grant of leave to appeal ought to be implied and observations by the RAA in its order dated 11-9-2013, even though stray and apparently casual, regarding a small delay in filing the appeal tantamounted to condonation of the delay in filing the appeal. 5. Heard. Considered. 6. In my considered view within the scope of Article 227 of the Constitution of India for interfering with judgments/ orders of courts/ statutory authorities on account of lack/ excess of jurisdiction, perversity, misdirection in law of manifest injustice, no interference is called for in the present petition. Procedure is fundamental in the administration of justice. An appeal filed beyond the period of prescribed limitation cannot be entertained without condonation of delay on a proper application being filed and the court/ statutory authority finding sufficient cause for the delay. Rights under a final judgment or decree of a court following the prescribed limitation for appeal/ revision lapsing, cannot be casually taken away. Before condonation of delay in taking statutory remedies is allowed, sufficient cause has to be set up and evaluated by the appellate court. Further leave to file an appeal against a decree to a non-party before the lower court has to be considered and granted only where justified on evaluation of the grievance of the applicant against the judgment/ decree impugned. 7. Further the Board has acted fairly and equitably in not finally deciding the matter to the petitioner's absolute disadvantage and only remanded the case to the RAA to proceed with the appeal against the judgment dated 23-7-2002 afresh after considering the application for condonation of delay in filing of the appeal before it and the issue of grant of leave to appeal to the petitioner who was not a party before the Sub Divisional Officer Laxmangarh, who passed the judgment and decree dated 23-7-2002. 8. 8. In the circumstances of the case, I do not find any ground to interfere with the impugned order dated 28-10-2014 passed by the Board. Writ is dismissed. 9. However, since the underlying suit relates to 1998, the RAA Sikar is directed to dispose of the appeal (following the Board's remand) within a period of six months from the date of submission of certified copy of the order of this court. 10. The writ petition stands disposed of accordingly.Petition Disposed of. *******