AKAN Vs. VIJEY CHAND

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is an application in revision by the petitioner Shri Akan seeking to revise an order of the Sub Divisional Officer Salumbar dated 6.4.1961, whereby the petitioners suit for permanent injunction was dismissed for non -prosecution. A preliminary objection has been taken by the counsel for the opposite party that the revision is not maintainable. His contention is that the order sought to be revised was an appealable order and therefore under sec. 230 of the Rajasthan Tenancy Act, this court has no jurisdiction to entertain a revision in this case. The learned counsel for the petitioner admits that an appeal was available to the petitioner in this case but he contends that the Board could still exercise the jurisdiction of revision and stressed that there was precedent for this. He relied upon a previous ruling of the Board, Shiv Sahai Vs. Ghasi reported in RRD 1947 page 51.

(2.) In order to decide the point thus raised we will in the first instance briefly examine the provisions of sec. 230 of the Rajasthan Tenancy Act and then proceed to consider whether on the strength of Shiv Sahai Vs. Ghasi we can entertain this revision. Sec. 230 of the Rajasthan Tenancy Act reads as follows: - -

(3.) The language of sec. 230 of the Act is simple and its perusal leaves no doubt in our mind that the power of the Board to call for a record of a case and revise an order of subordinate court is unequivocally restricted only to cases "in which no appeal lies". Now in Shiv Sahai Vs. Ghasi no doubt the same objection as has been raised before us was over -ruled. The learned Bench seized of the case overruled this objection for the reason which in their own words was that "the general rule that special and extraordinary powers of revision will not be exercised in favour of interference where another remedy is open to a party which it has failed to pursue, is not an inflexible one." With due deference to the learned Members of the Bench we would point out that what they took in consideration was a general rule of law and not the language of sec. 230 of the Rajasthan Tenancy Act. Sec. 230 of the Act prescribes a limit to the revisional jurisdiction of the Board to cases in which no appeal lies but does not takes cognizance of the cases where another remedy may be open to the aggrieved party. This another remedy can be different from an appeal e.g. filing of a fresh suit. In a case where "another remedy" is open to a party and this remedy is not by way of an appeal, the Board would be justified to entertain a revision. But where an appeal lies to the Board there is no jurisdiction with the Board to exercise its revisional powers. We are, therefore, unable to accept the proposition that Shiv Sahai Vs. Ghasi is an authority for the view that the Board can exercise its revisional jurisdiction in a case where an appeal to the Board is provided for. In other words an order under the Rajasthan Tenancy Act is not revisable and in this view of the matter we dismiss this revision as un -maintainable.