Dismissed

Chandra Gopal and Ors. v. B O R Ajmer and Ors.

Rajasthan HC1 Aug 2011CW/5930/2010

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court dismissed a writ petition challenging the Revenue Board's rejection of a review petition. Noting that the petitioner had accepted costs awarded for setting aside an ex-parte order, the Court held it was not inclined to interfere as the petitioner could not challenge the order simultaneously.

What did the court decide?

Writ petition dismissed; interim order dated 10.05.2010 vacated; application under Article 226(3) disposed of.

Chandra Gopal and Ors. Vs B O R Ajmer and… — Civil Procedure and Limitation | Rajasthan HC (2011)

¶1

¶2

CWP No.5930/2010

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JAIPUR BENCH, JAIPUR

¶4

O R D E R

¶5

S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.5930 of 2010. Chandra Gopal son of Shri Gauri Shankar and Others VERSUS

¶6

Board of Revenue, Rajasthan, Ajmer and Others

¶7

Date of Order :::: 01.08.2011.

¶8

Hon'ble Mr. Justice Dalip Singh

¶9

Mr. Shailesh Prakash Sharma, Counsel for the Petitioners Mr. Praveen Jain, Counsel for the Respondents

¶10

¶11

By the Court :

¶12

Heard learned counsel for the parties.

¶13

Perused the impugned order dated 08.02.2010.

¶14

Having regard to the facts and circumstances, which have come on record in the matter pertaining to setting aside the order passed ex-parte and rejection of the application under Order 9 Rule 4 C.P.C. filed by the plaintiff-respondents, which came to be allowed by the Revenue Board in revision, though the order cannot be said to be fully in accordance with law. The matter should be heard on merits.

¶15

Though, the learned Board of Revenue itself was of the view that while allowing the revision petition that the defendant-petitioner, herein deserves to be compensated with costs and has accordingly, allowed the revision petition with costs of Rs.2000/-. The petitioner has accepted the said costs and thereafter filed a review petition and the said review petition was dismissed by the learned Board of Revenue vide order dated 08.02.2010.

¶16

¶17

CWP No.5930/2010

¶18

While, it is proved that the revision petition was allowed ex-parte on payment of costs. The only reason, which comes to mind is that the Revenue Board was probably of the view that it would be save unnecessary expenses on the part of the defendants to ask them to appear before the learned Board of Revenue, as it was of the view that the matter be heard and decided on merits and that the said amount may be ordered to be paid to the defendants by way of costs as compensation.

¶19

So far as setting aside the order without hearing the opposite party and allowing the revision is concerned that was an error on the part of the Board of Revenue and the Board of Revenue should have issued notice to the petitioners before allowing revision petition.

¶20

However, in the subsequent development in so far as the petitioners having accepted the costs and thereafter challenged the order of the Board of Revenue by way of review and the rejection of review petition by the learned Board of Revenue, is concerned, I am not inclined to interfere with the said order as the petitioner has accepted the costs and cannot be allowed to challenge the order simultaneously.

¶21

Accordingly, the writ petition fails and is, hereby, dismissed.

¶22

Interim order dated 10.05.2010 stands vacated.

¶23

The application filed under Article 226 (3) of the Constitution of India stands disposed of.

CWP No.5930/2010

Ashok/

(Dalip Singh) J.

Chandra Gopal and Ors. v. B O R Ajmer and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Chandra Gopal and Ors. v. B O R Ajmer and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Vinood Vs Appellate Tribunal Jaipur andANR

M/S Jaipur Udyog Ltd. andANR Vs State of Raj and Ors.

Shakila and Ors. Vs Addi District Collector and Ors.

Smt Sushila Jain Vs State of Raj and Ors.

Janak Singh Vs State of Raj and Ors.

Parasher Motors Vs Baran Central Sahakari Bank Lt