S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 5922/2010. Case: Veer Singh Vs Board of Revenue, Ajmer and others. Rajasthan High Court
| Case Number | S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 5922/2010 |
| Counsel | B. S. Sandhu, Trilok Joshi |
| Judges | Govind Mathur, J. |
| Issue | Rajasthan Tenancy Act - Section 88, 53, 188; Limitation Act, 1963 - Section 5; Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 - Order 9, 22, Rules 9, 5, 8, Section 151 |
| Judgement Date | July 19, 2010 |
| Court | Rajasthan High Court |
Judgment:
(Jodhpur Bench)
One Shri Phusa @ Farsa Ram preferred a suit as per provisions of Section 88, 53 and 188 of the Rajasthan Tenancy Act with an allegation that Veer Singh and Kripal Singh have encroached upon the land owned by him, and as such, he sought a decree of possession of land and a declaration for his khatedari rights. The suit aforesaid came to be dismissed for want of prosecution on 19.5.1999. An application as per provisions of Order IX Rule 9 read with Section 151 CPC was preferred by one Sh. Lal Chand on 15.1.2008 claiming himself to be sole legal heir of Phusa @ Farsa Ram who, as a matter of fact, died somewhere in the year 1999 itself. An application as per provisions of Section 5 of the Limitation Act was also filed seeking condonation of delay in filing the application under Order IX Rule 9 CPC. In the applications aforesaid Sh. Lal Chand stated that he is the sole legal heir of late Phusa @ Farsa Ram who died issue-less, and prior to that, he executed a Will. A reply to the application aforesaid was filed by the petitioner-defendant stating therein that Phusa @ Farsa Ram died issue-less and the applicant Lal Chand is not his legal heir. The petitioner also created doubts about genuineness of the Will said to be executed by Phusa @ Farsa Ram in favour of Lal Chand. The Revenue Court by its order dated 5.3.2010 accepted the application preferred under Order IX Rule 9 CPC by Lal Chand treating the same necessary in the interest of justice. The sole discussion made by the revenue court while accepting the application aforesaid reads as under:
(The vernacular material has not been reproduced herein.)
A revision petition preferred by the present petitioner to challenge the order dated 5.3.2010 also came to be rejected by the Board of Revenue, Rajasthan on 16.4.2010. The Board of Revenue while rejecting the revision petition affirmed the order passed by the trial court simply by saying the same a reasonable one.
The instant petition for writ is preferred questioning validity, correctness and propriety of the order dated 16.4.2010 passed by the Board of Revenue, Ajmer, Rajasthan and the order dated 5.3.2010 passed by the trial court. The contention advanced on behalf of the petitioner is that no application as per Order IX Rule 9 CPC is maintainable on behalf of the applicant Lal Chand, as that could have been filed only by the plaintiff. The applicant Lal Chand was never a party to the proceedings of the suit...
To continue reading
Request your trial