Narayan Ram vs The State of Rajasthan

The present appeal arises from order dated 22.07.2015 in

S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.1335/2014. The Learned Single Judge

declined to interfere with the order of the Board of Revenue dated

31.01.2014 affirming the order of the Revenue Appellate Authority

dated 23.08.2005 which in turn set aside the order of the Sub-

Divisional Officer dated 15.12.2003 in Revenue Suit No.456/2002

and remanded the matter for fresh adjudication.

Learned Counsel for the Appellants submits that even if the

written statement was not signed by Respondents 3 & 4,

nonetheless it was filed by the Counsel to whom they had given

the Vakalatnama and who also represented the other

Respondents. If the written statement was filed by the Counsel

given authority by Respondents No.3 & 4, mere absence of their

signatures on the written statement was not sufficient reason for

them to disown it. The First Appellate Authority ought not to have

remanded the matter to the Sub-Divisional Officer for deciding

afresh if the latter had disposed the suit in terms of the written

statement. The second objection was that even if the matter has

been remanded, the First Appellant Authority ought not to have

given any findings on merits with regard to the claim of the

Appellants.

We have considered the submissions on behalf of the

Appellants.

The Appellants and the Respondents are the descendants of

a common ancestor who constituted as joint family. The

Appellants filed a suit for declaration and permanent injunction as

also correction in the entries of the revenue records before the

Sub-Divisional Officer. A written statement was filed by the

Respondents. The power on behalf of all the Respondents was

filed by one Counsel only. The suit was disposed by the Sub-

Divisional Officer on basis of the evidence lead by the Appellants

along with the admissions made in the written statement.

Respondents 3 & 4 then filed an appeal before the First

Appellate Authority that they were not signatories to the written

statement setting forth their own grounds of contest at variance

with what may have been stated in the written statement insofar

as they were concerned. The First Appellate Authority after

hearing the parties was satisfied that it was a fit case for setting

aside the order of the Sub-Divisional Officer and remanding it for

fresh decision in accordance with law. The Appellants

unsuccessfully assailed it before the Board of Revenue.

The Learned Single Judge with reference to Order 6 Rule 14

of the Code of Civil Procedure has held that the pleadings were

required to be signed by the parties and its pleader. The only

exception being where a party is by reason of absence or other

good cause unable to sign when it may be signed by any person

duly authorised by him. If Respondents 3 & 4 had contested that

they were not agreeable to the averments in the written

statement and there was nothing on record to suggest that there

were no reason for absence or other good cause for their not

signing the written statement, the reasoning for the First Appellate

Authority and the Board of Revenue could not be faulted with.

To that extent we find no infirmity in the order of the

Learned Single Judge warranting interference as the Appellants

will have full opportunity to contest with regard to any difference

in stand that Respondents 3 & 4 may take vis-a-vis the other

Respondents.

With regard to the second apprehension of the Appellants

that findings have been recorded against the Appellants by the

First Appellate Authority while remanding the matter, suffice it to

observe that the Sub-Divisional Officer shall decide the matter on

its own merits in accordance with law without being influenced by

any observation or opinion expressed by the First Appellate

Authority on merits.

The appeal is disposed with that observation.