DHANNA Vs. GHISA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The circumstance that gives rise to this revision may briefly be stated thus: - -

(2.) The applicants put up an application before the Tehsildar, Rajgarh, on 13.12.56 against the opposite party under sec. 251 of the Rajasthan Tenancy Act with the allegations that Khesra 1268 belonged to the applicants, that they had been irrigating it in Khasra No. 1252 that this irrigation was done through a channel passing on the eastern side of Khasra Nos. 1261 and 1262 belonging to the opposite party, that of late the opposite party had started to obstruct the course of irrigation and hence it was prayed that suitable action be taken against them. To appreciate the point that arose before the appellate court, upon an application for amendment it may be stated here that the village Patwari prepared a site plan at the instance of the applicants in which the course of irrigation was shown on the Western side of Khasra No. 1561 and 1262. The claim was contested by the opposite party on the ground that Khasra No. 1268 was never irrigated from well No. 1252 and that the source of irrigation for Khasra No. 1268 was some other well. The trial court, after recording the evidence of the parties and inspecting the site allowed the applicants to carry water to their field through Khasra Nos. 1263 and 1262 and 1264 and 1261. i.e. on the Western side of Khasra No. 1261 and 1262. An appeal was filed against this decision by the opposite party before the Additional Collector, Alwar. It was in the appellate court that the applicants put up an application for amending their original application so as to substitute the Western side on Khasra Nos 1261 and 1262 in their claim as against the Eastern side originally stated in the application. This application for amendment was disallowed. The appeal was, however, allowed and the case was remanded for further enquiry in the light of observations contained in the judgment of the appellate court. This revision has been filed against this decision by the applicants.

(3.) The learned counsel appearing for the applicants has frankly stated before us that the propriety of the decision of the lower appellate court as far as it concerns remand of the case is not open to serious challenge In fact the order of remand appears to be necessary in the interest of justice as the trial which was held in the lower court failed to bring on record all essential material necessary for the proper adjudication of the controversy. The order of remand would enable the parties to remove this deficiency.