ASHARAM Vs. REVENUE BOARD OF RAJASTHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard learned counsel for the parties.

(2.) The present writ petition has been filed against the order dtd. 17/7/2019 passed by the Sub Divisional Officer, Ratangarh, whereby the application preferred by the petitioner under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC was rejected. Against the order dtd. 17/7/2019, the petitioner preferred revision as well as review before the Board of Revenue, Rajasthan, Ajmer which were also rejected vide orders dtd. 1/8/2019 and 27/11/2019 respectively.

(3.) Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the respondent Balu Ram preferred a suit for declaration, permanent injunction and correction of revenue entries. During the pendency of the suit, the petitioner who is respondent in the suit preferred an application under Order 7 Rule 11 of CPC for dismissal of the suit on the ground that notices under Ss. 80 and 80(2) CPC were not served upon the respondents. Learned counsel further submits that the service of such notice was a condition precedent for the maintainability of the suit and since the same was not served, the suit proceedings should have been dismissed. According to learned counsel for the petitioner, the non-service of notice under Sec. 80 CPC will figure in the category of subclause (d) of Order 7 Rule 11 CPC and therefore, the learned Sub Divisional Officer, Ratangarh committed an error while rejecting the application so preferred by the petitioner for rejection of the plaint. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that even the Board of Revenue committed an error while rejecting the revision petition and the review petition preferred by the petitioner maintaining the order dtd. 17/7/2019.