Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2021 DIGILAW 53 (RAJ)

Rajesh Kumar v. Premchand

2021-01-06

INDERJEET SINGH

body2021
JUDGMENT : Inderjeet Singh, J. 1. This writ petition has been filed by the petitioner against the order dated 13.11.2020 passed by the Board of Revenue, Ajmer in Revision TA No. 4314/2020/Sikar. 2. Brief facts of the case are that the petitioner has filed a suit for partition and permanent injunction in the Court of Sub-Divisional Officer, Sikar and along with the said suit an application for temporary injunction was also filed by the petitioner in which the learned trial Court passed an ad-interim order dated 18.07.2019 directing the parties to maintain status quo. Being aggrieved by the order dated 18.07.2019, the respondents filed an appeal before the Revenue Appellate Authority which was dismissed by the Revenue Appellate Authority vide its order dated 06.03.2020. Being aggrieved by the order dated 06.03.2020, the respondents filed a revision petition before the Board of Revenue, Ajmer which was disposed of by the Board of Revenue vide order dated 25.08.2020 with the direction to the trial Court to finally decide the stay application within a period of 30 days, however, the stay application was not finally decided by the trial Court. According to the order sheets of the trial Court submitted by the counsel for the petitioner (Annexure-5) the matter could not be heard as the presiding officer was busy in other administrative work. 3. Thereafter, the respondents again filed second revision petition before the Board of Revenue challenging the ad interim stay order dated 18.07.2019 on the ground that the trial Court is not deciding the stay application finally, despite the specific directions given by the Board of Revenue in the earlier revision petition. The Board of Revenue vide order dated 13.11.2020 allowed the revision petition filed by the respondents and the ad interim order dated 18.07.2019 was set aside and further directed the trial Court to decide the stay application within a period of one month. 4. Counsel for the petitioner submitted that according to the order sheets of the trial Court (Annexure-5) there is no fault of the petitioner if the presiding officer has not decided the stay application within the time as stipulated by the Board of Revenue vide its order dated 25.08.2020. Counsel further submits that the petitioner has never sought any adjournment before the trial Court, therefore, the order dated 13.11.2020 passed by the Board of Revenue is bad in the eye of law. Counsel further submits that the petitioner has never sought any adjournment before the trial Court, therefore, the order dated 13.11.2020 passed by the Board of Revenue is bad in the eye of law. Counsel further submits that the petitioner has not concealed anything from this Court. 5. Counsel appearing on behalf of respondents No. 1 to 4 submitted that since the trial Court failed to decide the stay application within the time stipulated by the Board of Revenue vide order dated 25.08.2020 therefore, the Board of Revenue has set rightly aside the ad-interim order dated 18.07.2019 vide its order dated 13.11.2020. Counsel further submits that the respondent No. 4 has filed reply on 28.10.2020. Counsel further submits that the petitioner has tried to mislead this court. 6. Heard counsel for the parties and perused the record. 7. This writ petition filed by the petitioner deserves to be allowed for the reasons; firstly there is no fault of the petitioner if the presiding officer has not decided the stay application within a period of one month as directed by the Board of Revenue vide order dated 25.08.2020; secondly, according to the order sheets of the trial Court (Annexure-5) the presiding officer was busy in other administrative work and it was fault on the part of the presiding officer of the trial Court in not deciding the stay application within a period of one month; lastly, in my considered view the Board of Revenue has committed serious error in vacating the ad-interim stay order granted by the trial Court vide order dated 18.07.2019. 8. In that view of the matter this writ petition is allowed. The order passed by the Board of Revenue dated 13.11.2020 is set aside. However, considering the facts and circumstances of the present case, the trial Court is directed to decide the stay application filed on behalf of the petitioner strictly within a period of 30 days from producing the certified copy of this order.