PRABHU NARAYAN Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) AGGRIEVED by the order dt. 09.05.2002 whereby the Board of Revenue ('the Board', for short) had dismissed the second appeal filed by the petitioners for non -prosecution and by the order dt. 05.09.2002 whereby the Board had refused to restore the second appeal, the petitioners have knocked the doors of this Court.

(2.) THE Brief facts of the case are that on 14.01.1991, the petitioners -plaintiffs filed a suit for declaration and perpetual injunction in the Court of learned Assistant Collector, Chaksu Camp - Sanganer against the defendants. The defendants filed their written statements in the case denying all the averments made in the plaint. Subsequently, the case was transferred to the learned Assistant Collector (Trainee), Jaipur. Vide judgment and decree dt. 24.09.1994, the learned Assistant Collector dismissed the suit without affording any opportunity to the petitioners -plaintiffs to lead their evidence. Against the judgment and decree dt. 24.09.1994, the petitioners -plaintiffs filed an appeal before the Revenue Appellate Authority, Jaipur ('the RAA', for short). But the learned RAA dismissed the appeal vide judgment and decree dt. 15.07.1997. Consequently, the petitioners filed a second appeal against the judgment dt. 15.07.1997 before the Board of Revenue for Rajasthan, Ajmer. On 10.01.2002, the petitioners engaged Shri Sunil Pareek, Bhanu Pareek and Satish Pareek, Advocates, on their behalf to represent them before the Board. Since, the petitioners resided far away from Ajmer, the petitioner's counsel had assured them that they need not bother about their presence before the Board on the dates of hearing and their advocates will appear on their behalf. The lawyers assured them that they will comply with the various orders from time to time which may be passed by the learned Board. Thereafter, the petitioners have come to know that on 21.03.2002, the petitioner's counsel had been directed by the Board to submit the notices for the respondent. But the counsel for the petitioners did not comply with the same. The petitioners have further come to know that vide order dt. 09.05.2002, the second appeal filed by them was dismissed for non -prosecution because the notices for non -petitioners had not been submitted till then. The petitioners have also come to know that on 23.05.2002, their counsel submitted an application before the Board for restoring the aforesaid second appeal dismissed on 09.05.2002 on the ground that the mistake committed by the counsel was bona fide and not deliberate and the same was liable to be condoned. The said application was supported by the affidavit of the counsel for the petitioners Shri S.C. Pareek. But vide order 05.09.2002, the Board dismissed the application. Hence, the petitioners have filed the present petition before this Court.

(3.) ON the other hand, Mr. Pawan Sharma and Mr. Mahendra Goyal, the learned Counsel for the respondents, have strenuously argued that the second appeal was pending before the Board since 1997. Although the notices were issued to the respondents in 1997, the petitioners did not file the proper notices for the respondents. Therefore, their negligence is almost criminal. Secondly, the counsel for the petitioners has not given any cogent reasons for the inordinate delay in filing the notices. Hence, the Board was justified in dismissing the second appeal for non prosecution and in refusing to restore the said second appeal to its original number. Thus, the learned Counsels have supported the impugned orders.