JAGU BAI Vs. BOARD OF REVENUE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) IN this writ petition, the petitioners challenge the orders of the Board of Revenue dated 25th November, 1983 and 3rd February, 1984 marked Anxs. 5 and 5, respectively. It is not necessary to give in detail the narration of the facts as the writ petition involves only a short question of limitation.

(2.) IN a suit filed by Bhirva Bai, respondent No. 4 for the petitioner, a preliminary decree was passed on March 27, 1978, by the Assistant Collector (Revenue), Shri Karanpur. Against the judgment of the Assistant Collector, the petitioners filed an appeal before the Revenue Appellate Authority, but the same was dismissed by the judgment dated the 21st November, 1978. The petitioners then filed a revision before the Board of Revenue, which was admitted, but at the stage of final hearing a preliminary objection was raised by the respondents and the Board treated the revision as an appeal under sec 225 of the Rajasthan Tenancy Act, 1955, (here in after referred to as 'the Act') but as the memo of appeal filed by the petitioners was not accompanied by a certified copy of the decree of the Revenue Appellate Authority, the Board directed the Revenue Appellate Authority to draw a decree forthwith without any delay and the petitioners were directed to produce the certified copy of the same as soon as it is supplied to them. An application for the copy of the decree was filed by the petitioners before the Revenue Appellate Authority on July 3 1979. The copy was made ready on July 12, 1979 and was delivered to the petitioners on July 17, 1979. The petitioners filed the same in the Board on July 20, 1979 and. thereafter, the appeal was admitted on August 9, 1979.

(3.) IT would be seen that the petitioners had filed the application for revision within the period of limitation. The said revision was/treated as all appeal. The only deficiency pointed out by the Board is that the said appeal was not accompanied by a certified copy of the decree passed by the Revenue Appellate Authority. When the appeal was filed before the Board, the decree by the Revenue Appellate Authority had not been prepared. When this deficiency came to the notice of the Board, the Board by the order dated the 12th June, 1979, directed the Revenue Appellate Authority to draw the decree forthwith without any further delay and the petitioners were directed to produce a copy of the same as soon as it is supplied to them. Immediately thereafter, the petitioners filed an application for the certified copy of the decree before the Revenue Appellate Authority on July 3, 1979. It was made ready on July 12, 1979 and delivered to them on July 17, 1979. The petitioners filed the certified copy of the decree in the Board on July 20, 1979. It thus appears that the petitioners were not negligent in producing the copy of the decree before the Board, after it was made ready by the Revenue Appellate Authority.Even if, there was some delay in filing the certified copy, as it was ready, the delay ought to have been condoned by the Board and for that purpose, the petitioners could be made to pay costs to the respondents. In Basant Lal v. Bensi Lal AIR 1961 SC 923 the Supreme Court has said: If at the time when the appeal is preferred a decree has already been drawn up by the trial Court and the appellant has not applied for it in time it would be clear case where the appeal would be incompetent and a penalty of dismissal would be justified. The position would, however, be substantially different if at the time when the appeal is presented before the appellate Court a decree in fact had not been drawn up by the trial Court; in such a case if an application has been made by the appellant for a certified copy of the decree, then all that can be said against the appeal preferred by him is that the appeal is premature since a decree has not been drawn up, and it is the decree against which an appeal lies. In such a case, if the office of the High Court examines the appeal carefully and discovers the defect the appeal may be returned to the appellant for presentation with the certified copy of the decree after it is obtained.In the case like the present, if the appeal has passed through the stage of admission through oversight of the office, then the only fair and rational course to adopt would be to adjourn the hearing of the appeal with a direction that the appellant should produce the certified copy of the decree as soon as it is supplied to him. In the present case, the Board of Revenue, by its order dated 12th June, 1979, directed the Revenue Appellate Authority to draw the decree and the petitioners filed the certified copy of the decree within three days of the copy having been supplied to them. In these circumstances, I find that there was sufficient justification for condoning the delay in filing the certified copy of the decree before the Revenue Board. The petitioners should, however, pay costs to respondent No. 4 and 1 consider that a sum of Rs. 1,000/ - will be a reasonable amount to be paid to the respondent by way of costs.