Disposed

Bhero Lal, Son of Shri Ghisya v. Firm Jhumarlal Swarooplal Tiwari

Rajasthan HC29 Nov 2018CW/24904/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Writ petition dismissed with liberty to file a review petition before the Board of Revenue regarding a judgment not previously presented. The High Court directed the Board to decide the review within four months. Disposition was disposed of.

What did the court decide?

Liberty to file review petition; direction to Board of Revenue to decide review within four months.

Bhero Lal, Son of Shri Ghisya Vs Firm… — Civil Procedure and Limitation | Rajasthan HC (2018)

¶1

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR

¶2

S.B. Civil Writs No. 24904/2018

¶3

Bhero Lal, Son Of Shri Ghisya, Aged About 60 Years, R/o Gadi Ka Gaon, Tehsil Mandrayal, District Karauli (Rajasthan)

¶4

----Petitioner

¶5

Versus

¶6

Firm Jhumarlal Swarooplal Tiwari, Nahargarh Road, Jaipur Through Partner Praduman Kumar, Son Of Shri Govind Narain, By Caste Brahman, Resident Of Nahargarh Road, Jaipur

¶7

Govt Of Rajasthan, Through Tehsildar, Tehsil Mandrayal, District Karauli

¶8

----Respondents

¶9

For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Sudesh Bansal Adv.

¶10

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ASHOK KUMAR GAUR

¶11

Order

¶12

29/11/2018

¶13

Learned counsel for the petitioner-Mr. Sudesh Bansal submitted that the Board of Revenue by order dt. 7^th August, 2018 has allowed Second Appeal of the Private respondents and has further remanded the matter back to the District Collector. Counsel submitted that there was already a judgment and decree dated 1^st September, 2012, whereby the suit for permanent injunction filed by private respondents was dismissed.

¶14

Counsel submitted that the issues on which the matter has been remanded by the Board of Revenue was already covered by the findings given in the judgment and decree dated 1^st September, 2012. Counsel submitted that though a mention has been made of filing of the suit in order of the Board of Revenue,

¶15

(2 of 3)

¶16

[CW-24904/2018]

¶17

however, inadvertently the judgment and decree could not be placed before the Board of Revenue.

¶18

This Court finds that the Board of Revenue, which has passed the order on 7^th August, 2018, may look into the relevant documents, which could not be shown at the relevant time as the said decree and judgment has direct bearing on the issue involved. The petitioners have a right of filing the review petition before the Board of Revenue and they are always free to bring all the facts and documents on record for the perusal as also all the relevant documents into notice of the Court to review in the matter.

¶19

Accordingly, the present writ petition stands disposed of with liberty to the petitioner to file a review petition before the Board of Revenue and if any order prejudice to the interest of the petitioner is passed by the Board of Revenue, the petitioner has a right to approach the Court again.

¶20

Counsel submitted that the Board of Revenue has committed another illegality by not considering the application filed under Order 41 Rule 27 CPC. Counsel is free to take all the pleas which are available for bringing into notice of the Board of Revenue for reviewing its order.

¶21

Learned counsel for the petitioner made a request that direction may be given to the Board of Revenue to decide the Review Petition expeditiously.

¶22

This Court directs the Board of Revenue to decide the review petition of the petitioners expeditiously, but in no case later than four months, after filing of review petition.

¶23

(3 of 3)

¶24

[CW-24904/2018]

¶25

Accordingly, the present writ petition stand disposed of, in

¶26

view of the above observations.

¶27

(ASHOK KUMAR GAUR),J

¶28

Monika/143

Bhero Lal, Son of Shri Ghisya v. Firm Jhumarlal Swarooplal Tiwari

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Bhero Lal, Son of Shri Ghisya v. Firm Jhumarlal Swarooplal Tiwari

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Shriram General Insurance Comp Vs Rekha Bai and Ors.

Shriram General Insurance Comp Vs Prem Bai and Ors.

Chetan Kumar Todawata Vs State of Raj and Ors.

Banay Singh S/O Shri Natthi Singh Vs State of Rajasthan

Amit Kumar Jashwant Lal Vs the State of Rajasthan

Ramdev S/O Shri Jawara Vs State of Rajasthan