MOHAN LAL SON Vs. SURESH CHAND JAIN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Appellants have preferred these appeals aggrieved by the order dtd. 24/11/2021 passed by the learned Single Judge, whereby the review petitions filed by the appellants/review petitioners were dismissed.

(2.) It is contended by Shri R.K. Mathur, learned Senior Advocate, assisted by Mr. Aditya Kiran Mathur for the appellants that the learned Single Judge allowed S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.8209/2013, filed by Suresh Chand Jain, vide order dtd. 31/5/2018 without affording opportunity of hearing to the parties. Appellants challenged the order dtd. 31/5/2018 by filing D.B. Civil Special Appeal (Writ) No.821/2018, which was decided by the Division Bench of this Court vide order dtd. 20/7/2018 and the appellants were permitted to approach the learned Single Judge. It was mentioned in the order that if the review petitions are preferred before the learned Single Judge, the learned Single Judge will consider and decide the same after hearing the parties. It is contended that thereafter, the review petitions were filed before the learned Single Judge, however, the same were dismissed without hearing the parties.

(3.) It is further contended that since no one had put in appearance on behalf of the review petitioners, the court should have dismissed the review petitions in default rather than deciding the same on merits. It is contended that the grounds raised in the review petitions were not mentioned in the order dtd. 24/11/2021. It is also contended that the land in dispute was sold by Narmada Yadav, who was a member of Scheduled Caste and any sale made by the member of Scheduled Caste was hit by Sec. 42 of the Rajasthan Tenancy Act, 1955. Reliance in this regard has been placed on Rajasthan Housing Board v. New Pink City Nirman Sahkari Samiti Ltd.: (2015) 7 SCC 601.