KHEMA Vs. PEETHA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This revision petition is directed against the appellate order of the Revenue Appellate Authority, Udaipur, dated 19 -9 -63, whereby he rejected the appeal filed by the petitioners against the order of the Sub -Divisional Officer, Salumbar, dated the 22nd April, 1963.

(2.) Briefly stated, the facts giving rise to this revision are that in a suit filed by the non -petitioners for the redemption of mortgage of agricultural land and delivery of possession thereof, an application was moved by the petitioners before the trial Court to the effect that the Revenue Court had no jurisdiction to entertain the suit for the redemption of mortgage after the enactment of Rajasthan Tenancy Amendment Act No. XII of 1961 as the same was not provided for any longer in the Third Schedule annexed to the aforesaid Act. After hearing the parties, the trial Court rejected the application and decided to treat the suit as one under sec. 183 of the Rajasthan Tenancy Act in view of sec.43 sub -sec. (3) of the aforesaid Act.

(3.) Having felt aggrieved by this order, the petitioners filed an appeal before the Revenue Appellate Authority, Udaipur and again pressed the argument that under sec. 207 of the aforesaid Act, only suits and applications of the nature specified in the Third Schedule could be tried in Revenue Courts and as there was no mention of the suits for redemption in the third Schedule, the Revenue Court had no jurisdiction to hear the same. The learned Revenue Appellate Authority observed that before the coming into force of the new amendment, there was a provision in the Third Schedule to entertain suits for redemption. It, therefore, held that the present suit which was filed by the non -petitioners at the time when the jurisdiction to try such suits vested in the Revenue Courts, could be maintained there in view of sec. 6 of the General Clauses Act, as the amended procedure was not made applicable with retrospective effect. It, therefore, held that the present suit was triable by the Revenue Court and rejected the appeal.