SARDARA Vs. BALA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is a revision preferred against the order of Sub-Divisional Officer, Nohar, dated 25.4.61. The brief facts of the case leading to this revision are that a suit was instituted by the applicants in Tehsil, Nohar on 9.12.43 in which, inter-alia, a prayer was also made for the ejectment of the opposite party from the suit land. It dragged on for a number of years, and on 27.9.49 it was consigned "temporarily" to record under the provisions of Sec. 5 of the Rajasthan (Protection of Tenants) Ordinance, 1949, The applicants preferred an application to the learned Sub-Divisional Officer, Nohar (probably because of change of jurisdiction since) on 11.1.61 making a request that the case which had been consigned "temporarily" under the terms of the Rajasthan (Protection of Tenants) Ordinance be restored to its original number because of the Ordinance having been repealed since. The learned Sub-Divisional Officer asked the learned counsel for the applicants to produce law in support of their application. Finally, after a few adjournments, he passed the impugned order on 25.4.61 to the effect that there was no provision in the Rajasthan Tenancy Act, 1955 for restoring to its original number a case consigned to records under the terms of the Rajasthan Protection of Tenants Ordinance, 1948 which has been repealed by the Rajasthan Tenancy Act 1955 and, therefore, directed the dismissal of the application with the observation that the applicants could bring a fresh suit for the ejectment of the opposite party if they so liked. It is against this order that this revision has been preferred.

(2.) IT has been contended on behalf of the applicants that the learned Sub-Divisional Officer had failed to exercise the jurisdiction vested in him inasmuch as he had rejected the application for the restoration of the suit consigned "temporarily" in terms of the Rajasthan Protection of Tenants Ordinance, 1949 (hereinafter referred to as the Ordinance) only because the Rajasthan Tenancy Act (hereinafter reference to as the Act) repealing the Ordinance d:d not contain a provision for the restoration of the suits so consigned "temporarily". The contention is that there was no need of their being any such provision in the Act; and that it would be the provisions of the Ordinance alone which shall govern the consignment to records or otherwise of the proceedings or suits pending at the time of the commencement of the Ordinance.