S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 8767/2011. Case: Mallinath Singh Vs Board of Revenue, Ajmer & Ors.. Rajasthan High Court

Case NumberS.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 8767/2011
JudgesMr. Dinesh Maheshwari, J.
IssueRajasthan Tenancy Act, 1955 - Sections 88, 91, 92A, 188 and 212; Constitution of India - Article 226(3)
Judgement DateOctober 21, 2011
CourtRajasthan High Court

Judgment:

Mr. Dinesh Maheshwari, J.

  1. Though the matter is listed for consideration of an application moved by the contesting respondent under Article 226 (3) of the Constitution of India, however, looking to the subject-matter, this writ petition has been heard finally at this stage itself.

  2. The short point involved in this writ petition could be noticed on the following background aspects: The plaintiff-petitioner has filed a revenue suit under Sections 88, 188, 91 and 92A of the Rajasthan Tenancy Act, 1955 ('the Act') that now remains pending before the Sub-Divisional Officer, Marwar Junction. In this suit, the petitioner has also moved an application under Section 212 of the Act seeking temporary injunction. On 11.11.2009, while issuing notices on this application for temporary injunction, the learned Trial Court passed an ad interim order for maintaining status quo. It appears that this ad interim order was extended for some time but no such extension order was drawn beyond 24.06.2010. Even on 03.09.2010, when the lawyers abstained from the work, the matter was simply adjourned by the learned Trial Court without any order regarding extension of the ad-interim order. In relation to the order so passed by the learned Trial Court on 03.09.2010, the petitioner proceeded to prefer a revision petition before the Board of Revenue that has been dismissed by the impugned order dated 17.08.2011 (Annex.7) with the Board of Revenue observing that the matter had remained pending since the year 2009 with the interim order dated 11.11.2009 having been extended from time to time. It has been deduced from the circumstances, where several adjournments were granted and requisites were not put-in, that the petitioner only intended to prolong the proceedings and was not co-operating in the early disposal of the application under Section 212 ibid. The Board of Revenue rejected the revision petition while imposing costs of Rs. 5,000/- on the petitioner; and directed the parties to appear before the Sub-Divisional Officer, Marwar Junction on 20.09.2011 and to co-operate in disposal of the application for temporary injunction.

  3. Against the aforesaid order dated 17.08.2011, this writ petition came to be filed by the petitioner on 15.09.2011 and herein, while issuing the notices on 23.09.2011, this Court directed that the interim order passed upon the application filed by the petitioner under Section 212 ibid in the revenue suit on 11.11.2009 shall remain...

To continue reading

Request your trial

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT