KURAJI Vs. BOARD OF REVENUE FOR RAJASTHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is an application under Art. 226 of the Constitution of India. The petitioners Kuraji and five others have come to this Court against the order of the Board of Revenue dated the 15th of March, 1961 by which an appeal presented by the petitioners was dismissed for want of prosecution by a Single Member of the Board and the said order was upheld later on by a Division Bench of the Board by its judgment bearing no date in review application No. 2/1961. Tulsi Ram filed a suit against Kuraji and his sons in the court of the Assistant Collector Udaipur for ejectment. The case of the plaintiff was that he had purchased land Khasra No. 32/5 measuring 33 Bighas in village Charmar and that the opposite parties had entered into its possession illegally. The defendants contested the suit saying that the land was purchased from the joint family funds and even though the sale-deed may have been in the name of the plaintiff, he is not the exclusive owner of the land. The trial court dismissed the suit on the 3rd of December, 1957. The plaintiff went in appeal to the court of the Commissioner Udaipur and succeeded in obtaining a decree for ejectment on the 30th of March, 1960. The defendants then went in second appeal to the Board of Revenue. The Board directed the appellants to file process for serving one Jodhsingh from whom the plaintiff had purchased the land personally or for the joint family. The appellants failed to take steps for depositing process-fee and the case came up before a Single Member of the Board on the 15th of March, 1961. The learned Single Member dismissed the appeal in pursuance of rule 44 of the Revenue Courts Manual. The appellants moved a review petition, but it was dismissed by a Division Bench of the Board on the 15th of February, 1962.

(2.) THE petitioners have contended in this writ petition that the order of a single Member of the Board dismissing the appeal should not be regarded as an order of the Board, for, by virtue of rule 9, a single Member of the Board has no jurisdiction to dismiss an appeal. An order of dismissal of appeal can only be passed by a Division Bench of the Board under rule 9. It is next contended that Jodhsingh was not a necessary party to the suit for the appeal and default in serving Jodhsingh should not have the effect of dismissal of the appeal when all the necessary parties had been served.