INDER SINGH Vs. BOARD OF REVENUE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This writ petition has been filed by the petitioners who were defendants before the Court of SDO, who has dismissed the suit filed by the plaintiff-respondent and has decreed the cross objection filed by the petitioner by judgement dated 17.1.2004. It is contended that the land was given to the respondent for cultivation on fixed payment of salary of Rs. 1,000.00 per month for a period of three months. For first two years, he paid money but for the third year, he did not and force-ably took possession of the land.

(2.) According to the petitioners, the respondent was granted number of opportunities to lead evidence. He did not produce the evidence. Matter was then proceeded ex-parte against him and finally when he did not appear, nor his counsel appeared, the learned SDO, Hindoli passed an ex-parte decree against him in pursuance to which possession of the land was restored to the petitioners. Learned counsel contended that the Revenue Appellate Authority has erred in law in allowing the appeal of the respondent by accepting his application under Order 9, Rule 13 of Code of Civil Procedure setting aside the ex-parte decree and remanding the matter for rehearing. The Board of Revenue also committed a serious illegality in upholding the order passed by the Revenue Appellate Authority. Learned counsel cited the judgment of this Court in Madan Lal & Ors. Vs. Prabhu Dayal & Ors., 2009 (1) WLC (Raj.) 724 to argue that when it is shown that the defendant was given number of opportunities and he did not avail the opportunity and did not produce evidence, the ex-parte decree cannot be set aside merely at his askance. It was argued that in that case too, the decree had been executed. Learned counsel also cited the judgement in Bhagmal Vs. M.P. Cooperative Marketing and Consumer Federation Ltd. & Ors., AIR 2004 SC 1230 to argue that for making application for setting aside ex-parte decree, limitation should start running from the date of knowledge. In the present case, respondent admitted that he acquired knowledge of the ex-parte decree much earlier. The application which was filed with much delay ought to have been rejected. Learned counsel also cited judgement of Karnataka High Court in M/s. Rukmini Charity Trust Vs. M/s. Asopa Steel Corporation & Ors., 1991 (1) Civil LJ 843 for the same proportion.

(3.) Per contra Shri P.K. Sharma, learned counsel for the respondent argued that the Revenue Appellate Authority allowed the appeal giving cogent and valid reasons. It was specified that the respondent was prevented by sufficient cause in not filing application in time. The respondent had gone out of his native place to earn his livelihood and there he became ill and ultimately lost vision of both the eyes. He was an illiterate person and that he prima facie satisfied the Revenue Appellate Authority that he was in continuous possession of the land in dispute for more than 5 decades. Learned counsel submitted that the plaintiff-respondent produced copy of the khasra girdawavi from Svt. 2017 to 2020 wherein his father's name was recorded in column no.16 as farmer. The 'milan shetraphal' for Svt. 2028 to 2047 shows that the new khasra number is 325, which was also corroborated from receipts of irrigation charges produced by the respondent in his name. Khasra girdawari of Svt. 2030 to 2031 was also produced.