Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2022 DIGILAW 2419 (RAJ)

Harish Chandra v. Maksood Ahmed

2022-09-12

VIJAY BISHNOI

body2022
ORDER 1. This writ petition is filed by the petitioner being aggrieved with the order dated 27.04.2022 passed by the Board of Revenue, Ajmer (for short ’the BoR’), whereby the revision petition filed by the petitioner has been dismissed. The revision petition was preferred by the petitioner being aggrieved with the order dated 12.10.2020 passed by the Sub-Divisional Officer, Banswara (for short ’the SDO’), whereby the application filed by the petitioner under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC has been dismissed. 2. Brief facts of the case are that the respondent No.1 has moved an application before the SDO under Section 136 of the Rajasthan Land Revenue Act, 1956 (for short ’the Act of 1956’) with a prayer to make a fresh measurement with respect to the land of Khasra Nos.3089 and 6030/3088 of Village Talwada, Tehsil District Banswara. 3. The said application was opposed by the petitioner and a detailed reply to the same was filed by the petitioner. 4. During the pendency of the application under Section 136 of the Act of 1956, the petitioner has moved another application under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC with a prayer that the application filed by the respondent No.1 under Section 136 of the Act of 1956 may kindly be dismissed. 5. The SDO has rejected the said application while observing that the proceedings under Section 136 of the Act of 1956 cannot be treated as a suit and, therefore, the provision of Order 7 Rule 11 CPC does not apply and, as such, the application filed by the petitioner under the aforesaid provision is not maintainable. 6. Being aggrieved with the same, the petitioner has filed a revision petition before the BoR, which came to be dismissed vide order impugned. 7. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and after perusing the material available on record, this Court is of the opinion that the proceedings under Section 136 of the Act of 1956 are summary in nature and the cannot be treated with the proceeding of a suit. Hence, the BoR as well as the SDO have not committed any illegality in rejecting the application filed by the petitioner under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC as the same being not maintainable. 8. Resultantly, this writ petition being bereft of force is hereby dismissed. 9. Stay petition is also dismissed.