PUKHRAJ AND ORS. Vs. BABULAL AND ORS.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This petition is directed against order dt. 12.5.15 of the Board of Revenue, Rajasthan whereby the revision petition preferred by the petitioners questioning the legality of order dt. 16.12.14 passed by the Assistant Collector, Pokaran in Revenue Suit No. 28/14 rejecting the application preferred by the petitioners under Order VII Rule 11 CPC, has been dismissed. The respondent -plaintiff preferred a suit against the petitioners -defendants under Sec. 88, 188 and 92A of the Rajasthan Tenancy Act, 1955 ("the Act") before the Assistant Collector, Pokaran in respect of the land admeasuring 120 bighas comprising khasra No. 399 situated at village Luva. The petitioners -defendants filed an application under Order VII Rule 11 CPC for rejection of the plaint on the ground that the suit as framed is barred by principle of res judicata. It was averred that in respect of the land which is subject matter of the suit, the District Collector vide order dt. 25.10.1960 had already passed an order directing the Patwari concerned to rectify the record and enter the land in question in the name of the petitioners' ancestor Ranidan and thus, the suit preferred by the respondent -plaintiff is barred by principle of res judicata.

(2.) The application preferred by the petitioners was rejected by the Assistant Collector, Pokaran vide order dt. 16.12.2014 inter -alia observing that applicability of the principle of res judicata to the facts of the case is a mixed question of law and facts and therefore, the question of rejecting the plaint under Order VII Rule 11 CPC does not arise. That apart, the Court observed that the proceedings before the District Collector disposed of vide order dt. 25.10.60 was not between the same parties and no adjudication regarding the rights of the parties was made by the District Collector after determination of the issues and therefore, the principle of res judicata is not attracted in the matter.

(3.) Aggrieved by the order dt. 16.12.2014 passed by the Assistant Collector, Pokaran, the petitioners -defendants preferred a revision petition before the Board of Revenue Rajasthan which stands rejected by the order impugned. Hence this petition.