Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2021 DIGILAW 1867 (RAJ)

Lrs of Nena Ram v. Board of Revenue

2021-09-28

VIJAY BISHNOI

body2021
ORDER 1. This writ petition is filed by the petitioners being aggrieved with the order dated 12.8.2021 passed by the Board of Revenue, Ajmer (for short 'the Board of Revenue') whereby, the revision petition No.79/2021 filed by the petitioners has been dismissed. The said revision petition was filed by the petitioners being aggrieved with the order dated 5.2.2020 passed by the Sub Divisional Officer, Balotra (for short 'the Sub Divisional Officer') whereby, the application preferred on behalf of the petitioners under Section 151 and 152 CPC seeking correction in the order dated 24.8.2012 has been dismissed. 2. Brief facts of the case are that the respondent No.2 has filed a suit for partition and permanent injunction before the Assistant District Collector, Balotra in the year 2007. In the said suit, a preliminary decree was passed by the Sub Divisional Officer vide judgment dated 24.8.2012 declaring that the respondent No.2 is entitled to one-third share of the land in question, for which, the suit for partition was filed. A further direction is also issued against the defendant Nos.2 to 8 not to interfere in the peaceful possession of the share of the plaintiff. 3. The first appeal against the judgment dated 24.8.2012 passed by the Sub Divisional Officer was dismissed by the Revenue Appellate Authority, Barmer vide judgment dated 22.4.2016 and the second appeal was also dismissed by the Board of Revenue vide judgment dated 24.5.2017. It is informed by the counsel for the petitioners that against rejection of the second appeal by the Board of Revenue, the petitioners have filed a writ petition before this Court and the same is pending consideration. 4. In the meantime, the petitioners have moved an application under Section 151 and 152 CPC with a prayer to make correction in the preliminary decree dated 24.8.2012 passed by the Sub Divisional Officer on the ground that the Assistant District Collector, Balotra as well as the Additional Divisional Commissioner, Jodhpur have passed orders dated 6.8.2009 and 29.4.2011 in the proceedings initiated under the Rajasthan Land Revenue Act, 1956 wherein, it was declared that the petitioners are having one and half share in the land in question. The said application came to be dismissed by the Sub Divisional Officer vide impugned order dated 5.2.2020, against which, the petitioners have preferred a revision petition before the Board of Revenue, which also came to be dismissed on 12.8.2021. 5. The said application came to be dismissed by the Sub Divisional Officer vide impugned order dated 5.2.2020, against which, the petitioners have preferred a revision petition before the Board of Revenue, which also came to be dismissed on 12.8.2021. 5. Having heard learned counsel for the petitioners and after going through the material available on record, I am of the opinion that this writ petition, being devoid of force, is only an attempt on the part of the petitioners to stall the proceedings initiated by the courts below pursuant to the preliminary decree passed by the Sub Divisional Officer on 24.8.2012. The petitioners seek some correction on the basis of the orders dated 6.8.2009 and 29.4.2011 passed by the Assistant District Collector, Barmer as well as the Additional Divisional Commissioner, Jodhpur respectively, which were admittedly passed prior to passing of the preliminary decree dated 24.8.2012. 6. This Court is also of the opinion that the Sub Divisional Officer as well as the Board of Revenue have rightly rejected the application filed by the petitioners under Section 151 and 152 CPC and the revision petition vide impugned orders dated 5.2.2020 and 12.8.2021 respectively, as the orders dated 6.8.2009 and 29.4.2011 passed by the Assistant District Collector, Barmer and the Additional Divisional Commissioner, Jodhpur respectively cannot be taken into consideration in an application under Section 151 and 152 CPC. The petitioners virtually seeking review of the preliminary decree 24.8.2012 by moving application under Section 151 and 152 CPC, whereas a Court can only correct clerical or arithmetic errors while exercising power under Section 151 and 152 CPC but certainly cannot review any judgment or order passed by it. Thus, the attempt made on the part of the petitioners is nothing but an abuse of the process of the Court. 7. In view of the above discussion, this writ petition being bereft of any force is hereby dismissed with a cost of Rs.5,000/-. Stay petition is also dismissed.