Tehsil-Neemkathana, District-Sikar(Rajasthan) v. Devendra Kumar Son Of Shambhudayal, Resident Of

3/3. Kaluram Son Of Late Shri Makhan, Resident Of Patan, Tehsil-Neemkathana, District-Sikar(Rajasthan) ----Petitioners Versus

1. Devendra Kumar Son Of Shambhudayal, Resident Of Chavani, Tehsil-Neemkathana (Deceased) Through Legal Representatives- 1/1. Smt. Abha Devi Wife Of Devendra Kumar, Resident Of Patan, Tehsil-Neemkathana, District-Sikar(Rajasthan) 1/2. Piyush Son Of Devendra Kumar, Resident Of Patan, Tehsil-Neemkathana, District-Sikar(Rajasthan) 1/3. Ayush Son Of Devendra Kumar, Resident Of Patan, Tehsil-Neemkathana, District-Sikar(Rajasthan) 1/4. Annu Daughter Of Devendra Kumar, Resident Of Patan, Tehsil-Neemkathana, District-Sikar(Rajasthan)

2. Maliram Son Of Prahalad, Resident Of Resident Of Patan, Tehsil-Neemkathana, District-Sikar (Rajasthan).

3. Government Of Rajsathan, Through Land Holder, Tehsildar Neemkathana. District- Sikar (Rajasthan). ----Respondents Connected With S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 8652/2023 (2 of 7) [CW-8568/2023]

1. Madan Son Of Sohan, Resident Of Patan, Tehsil- Neemkathana, District-Sikar (Rajasthan)

2. Prithvi Son Of Sohan, Resident Of Patan, Tehsil- Neemkathana, District-Sikar (Rajasthan)

3. Makhan Son Of Sohan, Through His Legal Representatives 3/1. Manju Devi Daughter Of Late Shri Makhan, Resident Of Patan, Tehsil-Neemkathana, District- Sikar(Rajasthan) 3/2. Maduram Son Of Late Shri Makhan, Resident Of Patan, Tehsil-Neemkathana, District-Sikar(Rajasthan) 3/3. Kaluram Son Of Late Shri Makhan, Resident Of Patan, Tehsil-Neemkathana, District-Sikar(Rajasthan) ----Petitioners Versus

1. Devendra Kumar Son Of Shambhudayal, Resident Of Chavani, Tehsil-Neemkathana (Deceased) Through Legal Representatives- 1/1. Smt. Abha Devi Wife Of Devendra Kumar, Resident Of Patan, Tehsil-Neemkathana, District-Sikar(Rajasthan) 1/2. Piyush Son Of Devendra Kumar, Resident Of Patan, Tehsil-Neemkathana, District-Sikar(Rajasthan) 1/3. Ayush Son Of Devendra Kumar, Resident Of Patan, Tehsil-Neemkathana, District-Sikar(Rajasthan) 1/4. Annu Daughter Of Devendra Kumar, Resident Of Patan, Tehsil-Neemkathana, District-Sikar(Rajasthan)

2. Maliram Son Of Prahalad, Resident Of Resident Of Patan, Tehsil-Neemkathana, District-Sikar (Rajasthan).

3. Government Of Rajsathan, Through Land Holder, Tehsildar Neemkathana. District- Sikar (Rajasthan). ----Respondents For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Amit Singh Shekhawat For Respondent(s) : Mr. Ashish Kumar Saksena JUSTICE ANOOP KUMAR DHAND (3 of 7) Order [CW-8568/2023] 21/05/2025

1. Since common question of facts and law are involved in these petitions, hence, with the consent of counsel for the parties, both these petitions are being decided by this common order.

2. By way of filing these writ petitions, a challenge has been led to the impugned judgment dated 09.02.2023 passed by the Board of Revenue (for short ‘the Board’), by which the appeals preferred by the petitioner against the judgment dated 19.07.2017 passed by the Revenue Appellate Authority (for short ‘the RAA’) have been rejected and the judgment and decree dated 25.08.2015 passed by the Sub Divisional Officer has been upheld.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that a suit for partition was submitted by the respondents against the petitioners before the Court of Sub Divisional Officer (for short ‘Trial Court’) and written statement to the same was submitted by the petitioner, but without framing any issue and without hearing the arguments of the petitioner, the suit has been decreed vide judgment dated 25.08.2015 in a cursory manner and a cyclostyled order has been passed for framing a preliminary issue in the suit for partition of property between the parties by metes and bounds. Counsel submits that the aforesaid order was assailed and thereafter, final decree was drawn. Counsel submits that the petitioner assailed both the judgments before the Appellate Authority by way of filing first (4 of 7) [CW-8568/2023] and second appeals before the RAA and the Board, wherein he remained unsuccessful, hence, he has approached this Court by way of filing the instant writ petition. Counsel submits that on the fateful day i.e. on 25.08.2015, a seal was put on the order-sheet, which indicates that both counsels were present in the Court, but the Presiding Officer was busy in some other work, hence, the case was posted for the next date i.e. on

22.09.2015, but behind the back of petitioner and his counsel, the impugned judgment and decree dated 25.08.2015 was passed in utter violation of principles of natural justice, without hearing the arguments of the petitioner, hence, under these circumstances, the impugned orders passed by the Trial Court as well as the Appellate Courts are not legally sustainable in the eye of law and are liable to be quashed and set-aside.

4. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondent opposed the arguments raised by the counsel for the petitioner and submitted that written submission was submitted by the petitioner, wherein, admission was made with regard to partition of the land in question, hence, under such circumstances, no fact remained disputed, hence, the Trial Court was not required to frame any issue and record evidence of either side. Counsel submits that on the basis of material available on the record, the impugned judgment and decree dated 25.08.2015 have been passed, which do not bear any illegality. Counsel further submits that a preliminary decree and its judgment was not assailed by the petitioner (5 of 7) [CW-8568/2023] before the Appellate Court, hence, the same has attained finality. Counsel submits that at a later stage, an appeal was preferred by the petitioner before the RAA assailing the validity of preliminary as well as final decree in one composite appeal. Counsel submits that the appeal preferred by the petitioner challenging both preliminary and final decree itself was not maintainable before the RAA and both, first Appellate Court and second Appellate Court have not committed error in rejecting the appeals preferred by the petitioner, hence, under these circumstances, interference of this Court is not warranted.

5. Heard and considered the submissions made at Bar and perused the material available on the record.

6. Perusal of the record indicates that a suit for partition was preferred by the plaintiff-respondent against the defendant-petitioner before the Court of Sub Divisional Officer and a written submission to the aforesaid was submitted by the petitioner, wherein, the averments made in the plaint were denied. Under such circumstances, as per the provisions contained under Code of Civil Procedure, the trial Court was supposed to frame issues and record the evidence of both sides, but instead of doing so, a normal procedure has been followed, which is quite alien and foreign to the procedure contained under Code of Civil Procedure, 1908.

7. It is worthwhile to mention here that on the fateful day i.e. on 25.08.2015, the following seal impression was affixed in the order-sheet, which reads as under: (6 of 7) [CW-8568/2023] “i=koyh is”k gqbZA odqyk; mifLFkrA ih vks lkgc vU; dk;ksZ esa O;Lr gS i=koyh iwoZ vkns”kkuqlkj fnukad 22-09-2015 dks is”k gksA”

8. The aforesaid seal impression put by the Court clearly reveals that on that day, the Presiding Officer was busy in some other work and the case was posted for the next date i.e. 22.09.2015. It is quite surprising that on the very same day i.e. 25.08.2015, the impugned judgment and decree were passed and orders were issued for partition of the property in question based on metes and bounds of the parties.

9. Once the case was deferred on 25.08.2015 for next date i.e. 22.09.2015, there was no reason or occasion available with the Trial Court to pass the impugned judgment and decree dated 25.08.2015 behind the back and in the absence of the petitioner that too without adjudicating the dispute between the parties and without framing the issues, making discussions and appreciating the evidence of the parties.

10. It appears that a cyclostyled order has been passed by the Trial Court by filling the blanks and putting khasra numbers in handwriting. The judgment and decree dated

25.08.2015 passed by the Trial Court i.e. Sub Divisional Officer amounts to total non-application of mind on its part, which is legally not sustainable in the eye of law, which is liable to be and is hereby quashed and set-aside.

11. As a consequence thereof, the subsequent judgments and decrees dated 19.07.2017 passed by the RAA as well as (7 of 7) [CW-8568/2023] the judgment and decree dated 09.02.2023 passed by the Board also stand quashed and set-aside.

12. Accordingly, both the instant writ petitions stands allowed.

13. The matters are remitted back of the Trial Court i.e. Sub Divisional Officer to decide the same afresh after framing issues and discussing the evidence led by both sides, strictly in accordance with law.

14. Looking to the fact that the dispute pertains to year 1988 and looking to the age of lis i.e. 37 years, this Court deems it just and proper to issue directions to the Trial Court i.e. Sub Divisional Officer to make all possible endeavours to decide the suit expeditiously, as early as possible, preferably within a period of one year from the date of appearance of the parties.

15. The parties are directed to appear before the Sub Divisional Officer on 08.07.2025.

16. The stay applications and all pending applications, if any, also stand disposed of. (ANOOP KUMAR DHAND),J KuD/43-44