JHABAR MAL Vs. BOARD OF REVENUE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE plaintiff petitioner Jhabar Mal S/o. Hema Ram has filed these three writ petitions aggrieved by three different orders passed by the learned Single member of the Board of Revenue in revisional jurisdiction. In S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 6909/2013, the learned Single Member of the Board of Revenue vide order dtd. 19.11.2012 dismissed the petitioner's revision petition No. TA/1648/2011/Bikaner whereby the learned Board of Revenue upheld the order of the learned SDO dtd. 4.3.2011 in Revenue Suit No. 27/2007 -Jhabar Mal vs. Shivdutt Singh rejecting the application of the petitioner under Order 26 Rule 9 C.P.C. for obtaining Commissioner's report as to possession of the agricultural land in question vis   -vis defendants.

(2.) IN S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 6927/2013, the learned Single Member of the Board of Revenue vide order dtd. 19.11.2012 dismissed the petitioner's revision petition No. TA/5774/2011/Bikaner whereby the learned Board of Revenue upheld the order of the learned SDO dtd. 22.7.2011 in Revenue Suit No. 75/2009 -Satya Narayan vs. Jhabar Mal whereby the request of the petitioner -plaintiff for staying the proceedings of subsequently filed suit under Sec. 10 of the C.P.C. was also turned down. According to the petitioner -plaintiff Jhabar Mal, subsequently filed suit No. 75/2009 -Satya Narayan vs. Jhabar Mal was for the same land raising the same dispute between the parties for which the plaintiff had already filed revenue suit No. 27/2007 -Jhabar Mal vs. Shivdutt Singh.

(3.) HAVING heard the learned counsel for the petitioner, Mr. R.S. Choudhary, this Court is satisfied that such interlocutory orders having been upheld by the learned Board of Revenue in revisional jurisdiction do not require any interference by this Court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. The Revenue Courts below appear to have applied their mind to the facts and circumstances of the case and found that both the parties were separately claiming their respective rights and therefore, application under Sec. 10 C.P.C. could not be allowed.