AMAR SINGH TH Vs. RAM PAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is revision against the order of the S. D. O. Kekri dated 20. 4. 1959 passed in a proceeding for confirmation submitted to him, We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and examined the record also. The applicant preferred a proceeding u/sec. 85 Ajmer Tenancy and Land Records Act, 1950 against the opposite party for the recovery of arrear of rent. The claim was rejected. The applicant applied to the Tehsildar for the submission of the case for confirmation to the S. D. O. in terms of sec. 182 of the| Act. The case was submitted to the S. D. O. by the Tehsildar, on 18. 10. 1958. An objection was raised before the learned S. D. O. on behalf of the opposite party that in terms of rule 99 (1) of the Ajmer Revenue Court Rules, 1950 made under the Act no confirmation was allowed in the case. It found favour with the learned Sub-Divisional Officer and the application for confirmation preferred by the applicant was dismissed only on this ground. It is against this order that this revision has been preferred.

(2.) THE only point for determination in this revision therefore is the interpretation of Rule 99 (1) referred to above. This finds place in Chapter XIII of the Rules under the heading "preparation of decrees for confirmation". . . . . . . . . sec. 183 (2)". It reads "for purposes material to the present case. . . . . . . . . . . . " (1) (a), A decree or order shall be submitted for confirmation under sec. 183 in the following case only and in no others: - (a) when a claim for money, whether for arrears of rent, compensation penalty or damages is decreed :. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . " (2) A simple money decree of the original court mentioned in sub-rule 1 (a) shall be prepared in Form 27 and every other decree of such court in Form 28. " It has been urged on the basis of the above that unless the claim was decreed, there having been prescribed no proforma for an order dismissing the claim, there could not be deemed to have been passed a decree, nor any decree would be prepared in From 27. This argument is further attempted to be substantiated by the provisions of sec. 183 (2) of the Act that "a decree submitted for confirmation shall conform to the order passed and shall be prepared only in cases and in the form prescribed. " Obviously this view is based on an incomplete reference to the provisions of the Act and because of not understanding the purport of sec. 183 and rule 99 also correctly. As the scheme of the Act is many an order and decree passed thereunder are not final unless confirmed by a superior court. THE section dealing with a claim prescribes clearly whether the order or decree passed by the Officer dealing with it will have to be submitted for confirmation or not. THE present proceeding for the claim for arrears of rent is covered by sec. 85 of the Act, sub-sec. (4) whereof very clearly lays down, "the Tehsildar shall decide the case and submit the record for confirmation of the decree passed by him to the S. D. O. ". Sec. 182 of the Act qualifies the provisions of sub-sec. (4) of sec. 85 which lays down that "when, under the provisions of the Act, a Revenue Court is required to submit the record of a case to the confirming court, it shall not comply with such provisions. . . . . . . . . . . . (1) unless any of the aggrieved party to such case has, within thirty days of the decree or the order passed therein, made an application bearing a court fee stamp of the value of two rupees and eight annas to such revenue court, requesting that the record be submitted for confirmation ;. It means that the decree passed under sec. 85 is required to be submitted for confirmation only when the aggrieved party applies as laid down under sec. 182 (1 ). But at the same time the cumulative effect of both these sections is that if and when a party applies that the record of for confirmation it shall have to be so submitted by the trial court. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . sec. 183 does not in any way qualify this action. This sec. (183) deals only with "form of decree or order to be submitted for confirmation. That is to say, it only prescribes that in a case requiring the proceeding ltd be submitted for confirmation if an order is passed it shall contain a concise statement of the case, the points for determination, the decision thereon and the reason therefor. Further it lays down, vide sub-sec. (2), that if a decree is prepared in the case it shall not only conform to the order passed but shall also be prepared in the form prescribed by rule 99 (which has been framed under this very sub-sec ). It further lays down that it shall be so prepared only in "cases" prescribed. It does not say that unless an order or decree is required to be submitted for confirmation no decree would be prepared. What it lays down is only this that in cases required to be submitted for confirmation the decree would be prepared only in the proforma prescribed under the rules (R. 99 ). It has been argued that the term "prescribed" has been defined vide sec. 4 (30) of the Act to mean "prescribed by rules made under this Act'* and therefore the expression only "in cases prescribed" occurring in sec. 183 (2) of the Act would mean the cases mentioned in rule 99 and none others. This is again however not a sound view in Jaw. What rule 99 lays down is only that a decree shall be submitted for confirmation only in cases given therein and it docs not mean to convey that when the claim is not decreed but is dismissed no such decree would be prepared. THE definition of the term "prescribed" referred to above is also subject to the provisions that there is "nothing repugnant in the subject or context". Because of the provisions of sub-sec. (4) of sec. 85 a decree would be prepared in a claim for arrears of rent irrespective of the fact whether the claim is accepted and decreed or rejected. And as the sub-sec. requires that the record shall have to be submitted for confirmation, a decree shall have to be prepared in form 27 even when the claim is rejected and not decreed. When the applicant had made an application for the confirmation of the proceedings under sec. 182 (i), the learned S. D. O. was bound to examine the proceedings submitted to him and not reject them in the manner as he has done. He has thus by rejecting the application by making a reference to rule 99 not only acted illegally but also has failed to exercise the jurisdiction vested in him.