The High Court of Rajasthan allowed a review petition against an order that dismissed a writ claim based on a non-existent compromise decree. The court recalled the impugned order and remitted the original writ petition for listing after summer vacation.
The order dated 21/11/2016 is recalled and the petition No. 4994/1998 is listed after summer vacation.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
[2023/RJJP/010105]
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR
S.B. Review Petition (Writ) No. 35/2017
Smt. Mohini Bai Daughter Of Shri Prabhu Lal Wife Of Shri Babu Lal, Village Morana, Tehsil, Deegod, District Kota
----Petitioner
Versus
----Respondents
| For Petitioner(s) | : Mr. Sanjay Gangwar with Ms. Preeti Mehta, Adv. |
|---|---|
| For Respondent(s) | : Mr. Ravindra Kumar Paliwal, Adv. |
| Mr. Akshay Sharma, AGC |
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SAMEER JAIN Order
10/05/2023
This review petition has been filed against the order dated 21/11/2016 in SBCWP No. 4994/1998, which is reproduced as under:-
“Learned counsel for private respondents submits that a challenge is made to the order passed by the Board of Revenue though prior to it, the ACM Court so as Revenue Appellate Authority have also decided the case in favour of the private respondents thus concurrent findings of fact have been recorded by three revenue courts. Subsequent to the order passed by the Board of Revenue, a suit for partition was filed and thereupon compromise decree has been passed thus parties would now be governed by
(2 of 3)
[2023/RJJP/010105]
[WRW-35/2017]
the compromise decree. The copy of the order passed on the partition suit along with decree has been placed on record and was given to the learned counsel for petitioner.
Learned counsel for petitioner submits that he no knowledge about subsequent suit for partition and compromise decree thereupon. If writ petition is rendered infructuous in view of subsequent development, it should be on the submission of learned counsel for respondents. I have considered the submissions made by learned counsel for the parties and find that subsequent to the order passed by three revenue courts with concurrent findings of fact, a suit for partition was filed and decreed based on settlement between the parties. The decree for it was passed on 01.12.2006 thus now rights of the parties would be governed by the decree aforesaid.
In view of above, nothing survives in the writ petition and is accordingly, dismissed. A copy of the decree passed on a suit for partition is taken on record.”
Learned counsel for the petitioner has categorically submitted that no compromise was reached between the contesting parties and the writ petition was dismissed by relying upon false statements made by counsel for the private respondent.
Therefore, learned counsel for the petitioner seeks recall/review of order dated 21/11/2016 as the issue was not decided on merits.
Learned counsel for the respondents could not controvert the submissions made by learned counsel for the petitioner.
Heard and considered.
On perusal of order dated 21/11/2016, it is prima facie clear that the writ petition was dismissed by relying upon the statement of the counsel for the contesting respondent qua compromise
[2023/RJJP/010105]
[WRW-35/2017]
(3 of 3)
decree. However, since no such compromise decree exists, as submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner, the order dated 21/11/2016 needs to be recalled.
Accordingly, the review petition is allowed. The order dated 21/11/2016 is recalled. The writ petition No. 4994/1998 be listed accordingly after summer vacation.
(SAMEER JAIN),J
ANIL SHARMA /66
3 issues framed by the court
Whether the impugned order dismissing the writ petition on false grounds regarding a non-existent compromise decree should be recalled.
Whether the review petition deserves success when the lower court relied on incorrect submissions by the opposing counsel.
Whether the writ petition should be remitted after the impugned order is recalled due to procedural error.
Smt. Mohini Bai
Board Of Revenue, Ajmer
Jagannath's Legal Representatives
State Of Rajasthan
Sameer Jain
Anil Sharma
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
