BALDEV RAM AND ORS. Vs. KHINV RAJ

JUDGEMENT

(1.) BY way of filing the present writ petition, the petitioners have challenged the order dt. 12.02.2001 passed by Additional Civil Judge (J.D.) and Judicial Magistrate No. 1, Jodhpur on application filed by the petitioners under Order 13 R.2 read with Section 151 C.P.C. whereby the petitioners prayed for taking on record two judgments dt. 15.06.1998 and 25.04.2000 passed by Revenue Appellate Authority, Jodhpur.

(2.) IN this case, earlier, a revision petition was preferred by the petitioners being SB Civil Revision Petition No. 363/2001 against the impugned order dt. 12.02.2001, which was dismissed by this Court on 06.10.2003 in view of the judgment rendered by Hon ble Supreme Court in case of Surya Dev Rai v. : AIR2003SC3044 . In the said judgment, the Hon ble Apex Court held that revision against an interlocutory order is not permissible to be revised under Section 115 C.P.C. However, a liberty was granted to the petitioners to seek other remedies, available to the petitioners. Thereafter, the petitioners preferred the present writ petition before this Court.

(3.) ACCORDING to the facts of the present writ petition, the plaintiff -non -petitioner filed a suit for injunction against the defendant -petitioners in the year 1986. Later on, an application was filed for amendment of the suit for possession and injunction. The written statement was filed in the suit and during the pendency of the suit, other parallel proceedings with regard to 'patta' issued in favour of the petitioners were initiated by the plaintiffrespondent before the Revenue Court. The non -petitioner plaintiff filed an appeal before the Revenue Appellate Authority against the order of conversion of land in dispute dt. 16.12.1989, passed in favour of petitioner -defendant and the said appeal was decided by Revenue Appellate Authority, Jodhpur vide judgment dt. 15.06.1998 in favour of petitioners. Similarly, a review petition was filed against the order dt. 15.06.1998, which was also dismissed on 25.04.2000. After decision by the Revenue Appellate Authority, the petitioners moved an application for taking those judgments on record. However, the learned trial Court vide impugned order dt. 12.01.2001 dismissed the application while observing that those judgments are not necessary for adjudication of the matter because by those judgments, new facts will come on record and for the same, no issues have been framed. Therefore, there is no need to take those judgments on record.