Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2021 DIGILAW 275 (RAJ)

Ghisaram Sirvi v. Pyari Devi Sirvi

2021-02-03

DINESH MEHTA

body2021
JUDGMENT : Dinesh Mehta, J. 1. The matter comes up for consideration of an application under Article 226(3) of the Constitution of India seeking vacation of interim order dated 12.04.2019, filed by respondents No. 2 to 71. 2. The facts briefly narrated are that the present petitioner (plaintiff) filed a suit for partition, declaration and mandatory injunction along with a temporary injunction application. 3. The suit above referred came to be allowed by the learned SDM, Marwar Junction vide its order dated 26.10.2018. It is to be noted that the said decree was passed with the spirit of Lok Adalat-on the basis of compromise executed between the parties. 4. The respondents No. 2 to 71 (defendants in the aforesaid suit) filed an appeal before the Revenue Appellate Authority. Revenue Appellate Authority remanded the matter to Trial Court vide order dated 17.01.2019, inter alia, observing that any survey/inspection was required to be made by the Tehsildar as per Section 20 of the Rajasthan Tenancy Act, whereas the map has been prepared by the Patwari. 5. Against the aforesaid order dated 17.01.2019 passed by Revenue Appellate Authority, remanding the matter back to the Trial Court, the petitioner preferred an appeal before the Revenue Board, Ajmer, which was registered as appeal No. 534/2019. 6. Learned Members of the Board of Revenue did not find any substance in petitioner's appeal and his appeal was dismissed vide order dtd. 12.02.2019. 7. Mr. Naresh Singh, learned counsel appearing for the respondents (defendants) submitted that the order impugned passed by the Revenue Appellate Authority was only to the extent of remanding the matter back to Trial Court and the same cannot be said to be without jurisdiction or otherwise suffering from inherent illegality or irregularity, for which, interference of this Court is warranted. 8. He alternatively submitted that the Trial Court be directed to dispose of the suit within a period of six months and the interim order of maintaining status quo, which has been granted by this Court on 12.04.2019 be continue till the disposal of the suit. 9. Heard. 10. Since the Appellate Authority has simply remanded the matter back to the Trial Court, in considered opinion of this Court, keeping the matter pending, when interim order of maintaining status quo has been granted, stalling the suit proceedings would not be in the interest of justice. 11. 9. Heard. 10. Since the Appellate Authority has simply remanded the matter back to the Trial Court, in considered opinion of this Court, keeping the matter pending, when interim order of maintaining status quo has been granted, stalling the suit proceedings would not be in the interest of justice. 11. Having regard to the facts available and contentions raised and considering the nature of the controversy, this Court deems it appropriate to dispose of the present writ petition with the direction to the Trial Court to decide the suit expeditiously preferably within a period of one year from today. 12. Till then, status quo, as it exists, shall be maintained by both the parties. 13. Writ petition so also the interlocutory application(s) stands disposed of accordingly.