Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2021 DIGILAW 584 (RAJ)

Ratanlal v. Babulal

2021-03-09

MAHENDRA KUMAR GOYAL

body2021
JUDGMENT : Mahendra Kumar Goyal, J. 1. This writ petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India has been filed against the order dated 18.03.2020 passed by the Board of Revenue Rajasthan, Ajmer (for brevity 'the Board') whereby the second appeal preferred by the respondents/plaintiffs no. 1 to 7 (for brevity 'the plaintiffs') against the judgment dated 29.02.2008 passed by the Revenue Appellate Authority in appeal no. 26/2007 affirming the judgment and decree dated 25.01.2007 passed by the Court of Sub Divisional Officer, Alwar, has been allowed and the matter has been remanded back to the trial Court for decision afresh. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioners/defendants submitted that they have purchased the land in question through registered sale deed dated 03.05.2000 from its recorded khatedar, i.e., father of the plaintiffs and to defeat their rights, collusive suit for declaration and permanent injunction came to be filed against them. Learned counsel submitted that the Court of SDO, Alwar, vide its judgment and decree dated 25.01.2007, dismissed the suit in the spirit of Lak Adalat. He submitted that the first appeal preferred by the plaintiffs met with unsuccess; but, the Board erred in accepting the second appeal on the premise that the learned trial Court erred in deciding the contested suit in Lok Adalat Camp that too without settling the issues. He submitted that since the suit was dismissed in the spirit of Lok Adalat, the Board should not have interfered in the matter. Learned counsel, relying upon the judgments of Hon'ble Apex Court of India in cases of Sugandhi (Dead) by Lrs. and Anr. vs. P. Rajkumar Rep. by his Power Agent Imam Oli: AIR 2020 SC 5486 , Sambhaji and Ors. vs. Gangabai and Ors.: AIR 2008 SC (Supp) 767 and Lisamma Antony and Anr. vs. Karthiyayani and Anr.: AIR 2015 SC (Supp) 1147, submitted that the procedure is handmaid of justice and the same should not come in way for imparting substantial justice. He, therefore, prayed that the order impugned be quashed and set aside. 3. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and perused the record. 4. Undisputedly, the suit filed by the plaintiffs was contested one inasmuch as the petitioners have, in their written statement, disputed and denied the averments and claims made by the plaintiffs in their plaint. He, therefore, prayed that the order impugned be quashed and set aside. 3. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and perused the record. 4. Undisputedly, the suit filed by the plaintiffs was contested one inasmuch as the petitioners have, in their written statement, disputed and denied the averments and claims made by the plaintiffs in their plaint. The judgment dated 25.01.2007 passed by the learned trial Court nowhere reveals that it was passed in the spirit of Lok Adalat i.e. on the basis of compromise between the parties; rather, the suit came to be dismissed on merit. Learned counsel for the petitioners did not dispute genuineness of the observation made by the Board that in the Lok Adalat Camp, the contested cases could not be decided without compromise between the parties. Since, the suit was decided on merit and not on the basis of compromise between the parties, it could not have been done so in the Lok Adalat Camp and could only have been decided after striking the issues on the basis of pleadings therein and recording evidence of the parties. Undisputedly, the suit was dismissed by the learned trial Court without following the procedure prescribed under the law and hence, the Board committed no error in setting aside the same. 5. This Court is in respectful agreement with the law laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court of India in the cases relied upon by the learned counsel for the petitioners; but, the same have no applicability in the facts and circumstances of the case. In Sugandhi (supra), the Apex Court was dealing with a case arising out of application filed under Order 8 Rule 1A(3) CPC. In Sambhaji (supra), the issue was whether the written statement filed beyond the period of 90 days, could be taken on record or not. In Lisamma Antony (supra), the Apex Court was dealing with power of the Appellate Court to remand the matter where the suit was not disposed of on preliminary issue by the learned trial Court. Hence, these citations are of no help to the petitioners. 6. From the aforesaid analysis, it is apparent that the learned trial Court erred in dismissing the suit and the first appellate Court also erred in affirming the findings. Hence, these citations are of no help to the petitioners. 6. From the aforesaid analysis, it is apparent that the learned trial Court erred in dismissing the suit and the first appellate Court also erred in affirming the findings. The Board has rightly allowed the second appeal preferred by the plaintiffs and has committed no error in directing the learned trial Court to decide the suit afresh in accordance with law. Since, the order impugned dated 18.03.2020 does not suffer from any illegality or perversity warranting interference of this Court under its supervisory jurisdiction vide Article 227 of the Constitution of India, this writ petition has no merit. Resultantly, the writ petition is dismissed.