Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2019 DIGILAW 2855 (RAJ)

Umrudeen v. Shafi Mohammed

2019-11-18

DINESH MEHTA

body2019
JUDGMENT Dinesh Mehta, J. - By way of the present writ petition, the petitioners have challenged the order dated 07.11.2019, passed by the Board of Revenue, Ajmer in the stay application, along with a revision petition, which was filed by the respondent against the order dated 17.10.2019, passed by the Revenue Appellate Authority, Pali. 2. This is a classic case wherein the litigating parties lock horns and keep on stepping up the higher rung of the ladder without first placing their cause before the lowest authority. 3. The facts relevant for the present purpose are that the plaintiffs - petitioners filed a suit for partition, along with an application under Section 212 of the Rajasthan Tenancy Act, 1955 seeking temporary injunction. At the first date of hearing i.e. on 03.10.2019, the trial Court, while issuing notices, granted an ex-parte injunction requiring the parties to maintain status-quo, while also restraining the respondents from interfering in the plaintiffs' possession. 4. It is noteworthy that while granting the ad interim injunction, the trial Court had issued notices making them returnable on 13.11.2019. 5. Without waiting for the next date, the respondent rushed to the Revenue Appellate Authority by way of filing an appeal on 09.10.2019, with an application seeking interim relief. The Revenue Appellate Authority rejected the respondent's application for interim relief, vide its order dated 17.10.2019. He summoned the record and posted the appeal to 06.11.2019. 6. The respondent feeling disgruntled preferred a revision petition against the above referred order of the Revenue Appellate Authority (17.10.2019), along with an application for interim injunction before the Board of Revenue, Ajmer. 7. This time Board of Revenue intervened and vide its order dated 07.11.2019 stayed the order dated 17.10.2019, passed by Revenue Appellate Authority, Pali and the order dated 03.10.2019, passed by SDO, Jaitaran and called for the record of the case. 8. Feeling aggrieved by the order aforesaid, the petitioners have approached this Court. 9. While staying the effect and operation of the order dated 03.10.2019, the Board of Revenue called the record of both the Courts below. 10. Mr. Saruparia, learned counsel for the petitioner firstly argued that it is a settled position that before the Board of Revenue, no revision lies against rejection of ad interim relief, as the same does not amount to final order. 10. Mr. Saruparia, learned counsel for the petitioner firstly argued that it is a settled position that before the Board of Revenue, no revision lies against rejection of ad interim relief, as the same does not amount to final order. He further argued that even if for the sake of argument, it is assumed that the revision petition filed by respondent is maintainable, the learned Board of Revenue was not required to stay the effect and operation of the interim order dated 03.10.2019, passed by the trial Court. He submitted that order dated 03.10.2019 passed by the trial Court was an innocuous order, inasmuch as its effect was requiring both the parties to maintain status-quo. He argued that in a suit of partition, requiring the contesting parties to maintain status-quo was not an unusual order. Such order was imperative, so as to ward off creation of third party rights and to avoid multiplicity of litigation. 11. It was further argued that learned Board of Revenue has granted unwarranted indulgence and stayed the ad interim order dated 03.10.2019, without requiring the respondent to first file reply etc. before the learned trial Court. He further argued that there was no occasion for the Board of Revenue to summon the record of both the Courts below, as a result whereof the entire trial in the suit proceeding has come to a halt. 12. Mr. Arora, learned counsel for the respondent submitted that the order dated 07.11.2019 passed by the Board of Revenue is perfectly just and proper and in the facts and circumstances of the case, the Board of Revenue was justified in passing such order. He argued that the trial Court had granted ad-interim injunction without providing any opportunity of hearing to the respondent and has injuncted him while not putting the plaintiffs to any terms. 13. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record. 14. So far as the order dated 03.10.2019 passed by the trial Court is concerned, the trial Court has practically and literally ordered the parties to maintain status-quo, while also requiring the defendants not to interfere in the plaintiffs' possession. 15. Be that as it may, the respondent - defendant was required to file reply/written statement and place his defence and relevant material before the trial Court, instead of rushing to the Appellate Authority for getting the same set aside. 15. Be that as it may, the respondent - defendant was required to file reply/written statement and place his defence and relevant material before the trial Court, instead of rushing to the Appellate Authority for getting the same set aside. The defendant - respondent was not satisfied with the order of Appellate Authority and thus, preferred revision petition before the Board of Revenue. 16. Now, the petitioners have approached this Court challenging the ad interim order dated 07.11.2019, passed by the Board of Revenue. 17. In considered opinion of this Court, the ad-interim order dated 03.10.2019, passed by the trial Court was only to the effect of maintaining status-quo. If the defendant - respondent had any grievance or something to submit, he was required to first submit his reply/written statement before the trial Court and argue at least the temporary injunction application finally. 18. It appears that the parties have kept on approaching the higher fora, simply with a view to belittle on another. It was not a case, where the parties should have come to this Court. 19. The writ petition is thus, disposed of with a direction to the trial Court to decide the petitioners' application for grant of temporary injunction finally of course, after taking reply from the respondent and considering the material available on record. 20. The trial Court is directed to decide the temporary injunction application on or before 31.12.2019. 21. Till then, both the parties shall maintain status-quo, as it exists today, with regard to the disputed land. 22. The order dated 07.11.2019, passed by the Board of Revenue is set aside. 23. Appeals before the Revenue Appellate Authority and Board of Revenue against the interim order(s) thus become infructuous. Both the Courts below will dispose of respective appeals, pending before them, as and when the appeals are taken up for consideration. 24. The Board of Revenue shall return the record forthwith.