PRAHLAD CHAUMAL Vs. KAILASH BIYALA & ORS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner has challenged the order dated 14.12.2011, passed by the Board of Revenue, Ajmer holding that a revision petition against an ad interim ex-parte order was not maintainable under Section 84A of the Land Revenue Act, 1956 (hereinafter 'the Act of 1956'). Consequent to the order dated 14.12.2011, the order dated 21.09.2011, passed by the RAA, Sikar refusing to interfere with the order dated 06.09.2011, passed by the Sub Divisional Officer, Laxmangarh has been sustained.

(2.) The case of the petitioner is that on a suit for declaration, partition and permanent injunction filed by the petitioner (hereinafter 'the plaintiff'), the SDO, Laxmangarh granted an ad interim order on 28.06.2011 directing status quo with regard to the property in dispute in the suit. It is submitted that on notice being served on the defendant No.12 (respondent No.12 herein), the defendant No.12 moved an application before the trial court for calling of documents on which the petitioner has laid the suit as the adopted son of one Shiv Kumar. It is submitted that the SDO, Laxmangarh while disposing of the said application also vacated the ad interim ex-parte order dated 28.06.2011 without as much as adverting to the three ingredients relevant for grant or refusal of interim relief under Order 39 Rules 1 & 2 CPC. It is submitted that an appeal was filed by the plaintiff against the order dated 06.09.2011 passed by the SDO, Laxmangarh before the RAA, who while keeping the appeal pending, dismissed the application for interim relief vide order dated 21.09.2011. A consequent revision petition to the Board of Revenue was dismissed for want of its maintainability with reference to Section 84A of the Act of 1956.

(3.) Mr. J.P. Goyal, Sr. Advocate with Ms. Manisha Surana, appearing for the plaintiff has emphatically submitted that in the obtaining situation even while the plaintiff's application under Order 39 Rules 1 & 2 CPC filed in the suit for declaration, partition and permanent injunction before the SDO, Laxmangarh continues to pending and has not been disposed of by a reasoned and speaking order as warranted in law, yet under the order dated 06.09.2011 passed by the SDO, the plaintiff has been denied relief and the ad interim status quo order dated 28.06.2011 vacated while deciding a different application filed by one of the defendants in the suit. It is submitted that consequently, the plaintiff is without protection while the defendants continue to alienate or otherwise dispose of the property which is the subject matter of the suit before the SDO, Laxmangarh. Counsel submits that the order dated 06.09.2011 passed by the SDO, Laxmangarh vacating the ad interim ex-parte order dated 28.06.2011 on an application for calling of documents filed by the defendant No.12 was wholly without jurisdiction and completely improper as also a complete misdirection in law.