RAM SWAROOP Vs. SATYANARAIN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) By filing this writ petition, the petitioner has challenged the impugned judgment dated 29.3.2010 (Annex. 1) and Judgment and decree dated 3.12.2009 (Annex. 2) passed by the learned Board of Revenue for Rajasthan, Ajmer and also prayed that the matter to remanded to the Board of Revenue for Rajasthan, Ajmer for fresh disposal after giving proper opportunity to him.

(2.) Brief facts of the case are that initially a suit for declaration and permanent injunction was filed by the petitioner against one Mr. Badri father of respondents No.1 to 3 u/Ss. 88 and 188 of the Rajasthan Tenancy Act, 1955 (for short 'the Act of 1955') before the Sub Divisional Officer, Lalsot District Dausa with the averments that the plaintiff having possession of 10 bigha land of khasra No. 192 village Digo Tehsil Lalsot after purchase in Sanvat 2032 from respondent Badri but the land was not transferred in the name of plaintiff therefore, denying and demanding extra money by Badri but with the interference of the villagers, the sale was accepted by the respondent Badri but the registry was not executed and he has gone from the village, not came back.

(3.) Per contra Mr. Hemraj Gaur, learned counsel appearing for the respondents submits that the notices were duly issued to the petitioner. He submits that a perusal of the order-sheet of the case file of the appeal shows that four adjournments, after admission of the appeal, were given before final hearing of the appeal on 24.11.2009. The advocate of the petitioner respondent No. 1 informed the court that he had informed his client to appear and contact him. Finally, on 24.11.2009 when the appeal came up for final hearing, the advocate of the petitioner respondent No. 1 gave in writing to the court that he had informed the parties about the date but they party did not approach him as such he is pleading no instruction and the advocate had done his duty and informed the party but the party did not turn up on the date of hearing which shows his carelessness and negligence. Thus the impugned judgment dated 29.3.2009 (Annex. 1) and Judgment and Decree dated 3.12.2009 (Annex. 2] passed by the learned Board of Revenue for Rajasthan, Ajmer needs no interference of this Court.