High CourtsSingle Bench(2014) 05 RAJ CK 0167

Sampat Raj Mehta vs Board of Revenue and Others

Rajasthan High Court · Decided on 22 May 2014

HON’BLE JUDGES
Vineet Kothari, J
RESULT
Disposed Off
CASE NUMBER
Civil Writ Petition No. 14835/2013

CourtKutchehry membership

More clarity. Every judgment.

Download court copies, explore connected cases and make more of every research session.

Loading membership options…

Ask AI about this case

AI Structured Summary

Not yet generated for this judgment

Judgment

5 paragraphs · 357 words

Vineet Kothari, J.—The petitioner has filed the present writ petition against the order dtd. 4.6.2013, Annex. 1 passed by the learned Board of Revenue, Ajmer, whereby the learned Board of Revenue held as under:

6.

The circumstances of the case evidently suggest that there has been transfer of this case very casually from one court to the other, which has potential to create confusion between the parties. In this case the notices were also not served on the petitioners-defendants individually but they were affixed on their farm house without prior approval of the Court. In view of this Court there are sufficient grounds to exercise jurisdiction vested in the trial court under Order 9 Rule 7 of the CPC and allow them to participate in the proceedings of the suit. In the circumstances mentioned hereinabove, the order passed by the learned trial court suffers from legal infirmity. Consequently, the revision petition filed by the petitioners succeeds. The impugned order passed by the trial court is quashed and set aside. The application filed by the petitioners under Order 9 Rule 7 of the CPC is accepted. The trial court is directed to allow them to participate in the proceedings of the suit.

2.

The apprehension expressed by the petitioner-plaintiff before this Court in the present writ petition is that the learned SDO, Desuri may unnecessarily be prejudiced by the order of the Board of Revenue Annex. 1 dtd. 4.6.2013, while considering the application filed by the respondents under Order 9 Rule 7 C.P.C. only and the respondents were only allowed to join the proceedings of the suit, whereas they have applied for setting aside all the ex parte proceedings.

3.

The apprehension of the petitioner appears to be misplaced. Filing of the application before the learned SDO does not lead to any particular conclusion and both the parties are free to argue their respective cases and the learned SDO is free to decide the same in accordance with law.

4.

The present writ petition is premature and disposed of as such. No order as to costs. A copy of this order be sent to the parties concerned forthwith.