NAND LAL Vs. GANGA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HEARD learned counsel for the parties. In this writ petition filed by the petitioner under Article 226 & 227 of the Constitution of India, petitioner is challenging validity of order dated 25.06.96 (Annex.11) passed by Board of Revenue in Revision No. 189/92/TA/Udaipur by which an application filed by the petitioner under Order 8A(2) of CPC was rejected. As per facts of the case, in the suit filed by respondents on 17.04.79 against the petitioners under Section 88, 183 of the Rajasthan Tenancy Act for declaration and injunction for the land of 40 bighas in various khasras of village Majam District Udaipur. An application under Order 13 Rule 2 CPC was filed on 22.02.84 with the prayer that certain documents mentioned in the application total 13 in number may be taken on record.

(2.) AFTER filing reply by the respondent plaintiffs, the Assistant Collector (Trainees) rejected the said application vide order dated 24.04.84 while holding that those documents are not filed after gross delay. The order passed by Assistant Collector was further challenged by way of filing revision petition under Section 230 of the Rajasthan Tenancy Act, 1955 before the Board of Revenue, Ajmer. The Board of Revenue dismissed the said revision petition on merits while holding that trial court is having jurisdiction to see the circumstances in which the said application can be accepted under Order 13 Rule 2 C.P.C and trial court after due application, did not find it necessary to take those documents on record and hold that while exercising revisional jurisdiction, the order which is passed upon discretion of Court cannot be interfered. The judgment rendered by Board of Revenue, Ajmer dated 24.02.90 attained finality because it was not challenged by the petitioner.

(3.) LEARNED counsel for the petitioner vehemently argued that order passed by Board of Revenue, Ajmer on 25.06.96 is not in consonance with law because at the time of rejection of application filed under Order 13 Rule 2 CPC, stage was altogether different and there was no power left with the Court to condone the delay in filing such documents but as per Order 8 Rule 8A(2) CPC, there is power left with the Court to take the documents on record while condoning the delay. Therefore, although there was no error was committed by the trial court in passing the order dated 07.08.92 upon application filed under Order 8 Rule 8A(2) CPC but Board of Revenue quashed the order without application of mind erroneously, therefore, the order impugned may be quashed.