Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2021 DIGILAW 1308 (RAJ)

Nuru v. Navi Khan

2021-08-04

SANJEEV PRAKASH SHARMA

body2021
JUDGMENT 1. Heard learned counsels for the respective parties. 2. These three writ petitions have been filed by the defendants- petitioners assailing the order passed by the learned Sub Divisional Officer dated 25.05.2016 and the order dated 09.03.2018 passed by the Board of Revenue whereby reply to the counter claim was taken on record by the SDO in a revenue suit filed by the non-petitioners seeking partition and permanent injunction. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioners-defendants submits that the reply to the suit and counter claim was filed in 2008 before the concerned SDO however, the reply to the counter claim was filed only on 30.01.2017. Learned counsel submits that the reply to the counter claim was highly belated and the same ought not to have been taken on record. He further submits that the revision petition preferred against the said order has already been erroneously dismissed by the Board of Revenue. 4. Learned counsel relies on the judgment passed by the Supreme Court in Desh Raj v. Balkishan (D) Thr. Proposed LR reported in (2020) 2 SCC 708 and submits that there are no cogent reasons for allowing the reply to the counter claim to be taken on record. Learned counsel further submits that the approach of the Board of Revenue is also erroneous. 5. Per contra, learned counsel appearing for the respondents- non-petitioners submits that after 2008 the suit remained pending before the Revenue Board in relation to other disputes raised by the petitioners-defendants in relation to an application moved by the non-petitioners under Order 6 Rule 17 CPC as well as applications moved under Order 1 Rule 10 CPC. Thus, at the behest of the petitioners since the file pending lying before the SDO, there was no occasion for the non-petitioners to submit reply to the counter claim. He further submits that so far as Revenue Courts are concerned, they cannot be said to be strictly governed by the provisions of CPC as they are not civil courts in terms of CPC. He further submits that the suit is of partition and reply to the counter claim ought to have been taken on record. It has been rightly taken on record with cost which has also been deposited and accepted by the petitioners. 6. I have considered the submissions. 7. He further submits that the suit is of partition and reply to the counter claim ought to have been taken on record. It has been rightly taken on record with cost which has also been deposited and accepted by the petitioners. 6. I have considered the submissions. 7. In the case of Desh Raj (supra), the Supreme Court has observed that provision of Order 8 Rule 1 CPC continue to be directory and does not do away with the inherent discretion of the courts to condone certain delays. However, it further observed that there should not be routine condonations in cavalry attitude towards the process of law as it affects the administration of justice. Having said so, the Supreme Court has allowed the written statement to be taken on record which was belated. 8. This Court finds that in the present cases, cogent reasons have come on record for not filing reply to the counter claim in time. Admittedly, the plaintiffs themselves had taken up the matter which was pending before the SDO to higher courts in appeal and revision and thereafter the matter has come back to the SDO only in the year 2013 whereafter the counter claim has been filed and the same has been taken on record on cost in 2016 and further proceedings before the SDO have been continued thereafter. In the circumstances, at the stage after four years of the passing of the order, this Court does not deem it appropriate to set aside the orders passed by the SDO and the Board of Revenue. The proceedings may now continue accordingly. 9. The writ petitions are dismissed. All pending applications shall also stand disposed of.