Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2015 DIGILAW 1373 (RAJ)

Narayan Ram v. State of Rajasthan

2015-07-22

SANGEET LODHA

body2015
JUDGMENT : Sangeet Lodha, J. This writ petition is directed against the order dated 31.1.14 of the Board of Revenue Rajasthan, whereby an appeal preferred by the petitioners herein against the judgment and decree dated 23.8.05 passed by the Revenue Appellate Authority (RAA), setting aside the judgment and decree dated 15.12.03 passed by the Sub Divisional Officer, Osiya in Revenue Suit No.456/02, stands dismissed. 2. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioners contended that the claim of the petitioners as set out in the plaint was admitted by the defendants in the written statement and therefore, the judgment and decree passed by the trial court was not open to be interfered with by the Appellate Authority. Learned counsel submitted that all the defendants engaged one counsel who filed the written statement admitting the claim and therefore, even if the written statement was not signed by the respondent no. 3 & 4 herein, the same was binding upon them and it was not open for them to question the legality of the decree by way of an appeal. 3. I have considered the submissions of the learned counsel and perused the material on record. 4. Indisputably, where admission of the fact has been made either in pleadings or otherwise whether orally or in writing, the court may at any stage of the suit either on application of any party or of its own motion without waiting for determination of any other question between the parties, make such order or give such judgment as it may think fit, having regard to such admission. But then, as per Order 6, Rule 14, every pleading is required to be signed by the party and its pleader, if any. As per proviso thereto, only in case where a party pleading is by reason of absence or other good cause, unable to sign the pleading, it may be signed by any person duly authorized by him to sign the same or to sue or defend on his behalf. 5. In the instant case, there is nothing on record to suggest that the respondent no.2 & 3 herein were absent or for other good cause, they were unable to sign the pleadings. It is pertinent to note that they had specifically denied the fact that they had instructed their counsel to file a written statement on their behalf admitting the claim of the plaintiff. It is pertinent to note that they had specifically denied the fact that they had instructed their counsel to file a written statement on their behalf admitting the claim of the plaintiff. A perusal of the written statement goes to show that the counsel for the defendant has signed as counsel in the matter and not on behalf of the defendants under any specific authorization in this regard. Thus, on the facts and in the circumstance of the case, in the considered opinion of this court, where the written statement filed admitting the claim of the plaintiff does not bear signatures of the defendants, the respondent no.2 & 3 herein, and they have specifically denied to have authorized the counsel to file a written statement admitting the claim of the plaintiff on their behalf, the order impugned passed by the Board of Revenue affirming the judgment and decree passed by the RAA setting aside the judgment and decree passed by the trial court does not suffer from any jurisdictional error so as to warrant interference by this court in exercise of its supervisory jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. 6. In the result, the petition fails, it is hereby dismissed in limine.