[2025:RJ-JP:21220] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 5152/2020 1. Babulal Son Of Late Shri Chhitarmal., Resident Of Ward No. 14, Ramlila Maidan, Sikar. 2. Murarilal Son Of Late Shri Chhitarmal, Resident Of Ward No. 14, Ramlila Maidan, Sikar. 3. Santosh Daughter Of Late Shri Chhitarmal., Resident Of Ward No. 14, Ramlila Maidan, Sikar. 4. Dhanni Devi Wife Of Late Shri Chhitarmal, Resident Of Ward No. 14, Ramlila Maidan, Sikar. 5. Gulabi Wife Of Late Shri Jagdish., Resident Of Ward No. 14, Ramlila Maidan, Sikar. 6. Raj Kumar Son Of Late Shri Jagdish, Resident Of Ward No. 14, Ramlila Maidan, Sikar. 7. Madan Son Of Late Shri Jagdish, Resident Of Ward No. 14, Ramlila Maidan, Sikar. 8. Govind Son Of Late Shri Jagdish., Resident Of Ward No. 14, Ramlila Maidan, Sikar. 9. Bharti D/o Late Shri Jagdish, Resident Of Ward No. 14, Ramlila Maidan, Sikar. 10. Mohan Lal Son Of Late Shri Naraian, Resident Of Ward No. 14, Ramlila Maidan, Sikar. 11. Norang Lal Son Of Late Shri Naraian., Resident Of Ward No. 14, Ramlila Maidan, Sikar. 12. Rameshwar Son Of Late Shri Naraian, Resident Of Ward No. 14, Ramlila Maidan, Sikar. 13. Deendayal Son Of Late Shri Naraian, Resident Of Ward No. 14, Ramlila Maidan, Sikar. ----Petitioners Versus 1. Ramu Dev Son Of Shri Bhuda, Resident Of Ramlila Maidan, Ward No. 14, Sikar (Rajasthan). 2. Dhuda Son Of Shri Bhuda, Resident Of Ramlila Maidan, Ward No. 14, Sikar (Rajasthan). 3. Gutta Son Of Shri Bhuda, Resident Of Ramlila Maidan, Ward No. 14, Sikar (Rajasthan). [2025:RJ-JP:21220] (2 of 8) [CW-5152/2020] 4. Smt. Surji Wife Of Late Shri Nanuram, Resident Of Ramlila Maidan, Ward No. 14, Sikar (Rajasthan). 5. Smt. Vimla Wife Of Shri Om Prakash, Resident Of Ramlila Maidan, Ward No. 14, Sikar (Rajasthan). 6. Nissar Khan Son Of Shri Bashir Khan, Resident Of Ramlila Maidan, Ward No. 14, Sikar (Rajasthan). 7. Ramjan Khan Son Of Shri Bashir Khan, Resident Of Ramlila Maidan, Ward No. 14, Sikar (Rajasthan). 8. Shabbir Khan Son Of Shri Bashir Khan, Resident Of Ramlila Maidan, Ward No. 14, Sikar (Rajasthan). 9. Faiyaz Khan Son Of Shri Bashir Khan, Resident Of Ramlila Maidan, Ward No. 14, Sikar (Rajasthan). 10. Smt. Santosh Wife Of Shri Banwari, Resident Of Jain School Ke Pichhe, Dolia Ka Bass, Sikar, Tehsil And District Sikar (Rajasthan). 11. Deputy Registrar, Sikar, Tehsil And District Sikar, (Rajasthan). 12. Tehsildar, Sikar, Tehsil And District Sikar, (Rajasthan). ----Respondents For Petitioner(s) : Mr.Saransh Saini with Mr.Vinod Kumar Sharma For Respondent(s) : Mr.Shiv Charan Gupta Mr.Ashish Sharma Upadhyay with Mr.Jai Kishan Singh JUSTICE ANOOP KUMAR DHAND Order 20/05/2025 1. By way of filing this writ petition, a challenge has been made to the impugned order dated 25.02.2020 passed by the Board of Revenue (for short, “the Board”) whereby the revision petition filed by the petitioners was dismissed on the ground of non- maintainabity. [2025:RJ-JP:21220] (3 of 8) [CW-5152/2020] 2. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that in a suit filed by the petitioners, a certain strangers to the litigation, filed an application under Section 11 CPC for rejection of the suit by treating the same as being barred by res judicata and the said application submitted by the stranger was allowed by the Court of Sub-Divisional Officer (for short, “the SDO”) vide order dated 10.10.2012 and the suit filed by the petitioners was rejected treating the same as barred by res judicata. 3. Counsel submits that though against rejection of a plaint, an appeal filed under Section 223 of the Rajasthan Tenancy Act, 1955 (for short, “the Act of 1955”) is maintainable, but the same is maintainable against the original decree, whereas, the instant case, no such decree was prepared, hence, under these circumstances, the petitioners submitted a revision petition before the Board. Counsel submits that instead of deciding the revision petition filed by the petitioner on its merits, the same was rejected as not maintainable. 4. Aggrieved by the aforesaid order passed by the Board, the petitioners approached this Court by way of filing S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.3153/2014 wherein the order passed by the Board was set-aside and the matter was remanded back to the Revisional Court, i.e., the Board to decide the revision petition of the petitioners on merits. Counsel submits that the order passed by this Court was clear and specific, but this time, again the Revisional Court rejected the revision petition filed by the petitioners by passing the order impugned, treating the same as not maintainable. Counsel submits that till the date of passing of the order by the Revisional Court, i.e., on 25.02.2020, no decree [2025:RJ-JP:21220] (4 of 8) [CW-5152/2020] was drawn, hence, under these circumstances, the action on the part of the Revisional Authority tantamounts to disobedience of the order passed by this Court. Counsel submits that if at all any decree is prepared at the later stage, the same is not binding upon the Revisional Court. The Revisional Court was supposed to hear and decide the matter on merits instead of rejecting the same on a technical count, hence, under these circumstances, interference of this Court is warranted. 5. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondents opposes the arguments raised by counsel for the petitioners and submits that while deciding the earlier writ petition, submitted by the petitioners, no such direction was issued by this Court to the Revisional Court to decide the revision petition filed by the petitioners on merits, rather remitting the matter would not by any necessary implication mean that the matter is to be decided on merits, but it would be only when the decree is not drawn, in pursuance of the order of the SDO or the decree is yet to be drawn. Counsel submits that it was also observed by this Court that under such circumstances, the revision petition would not be maintainable. 6. Counsel submits that following the commands issued by this Court, the Revisional Court has rightly rejected the revision petition submitted by the petitioners treating the same as non- maintainable. Counsel submits that after passing of the order dated 25.02.2020, the SDO has drawn the decree vide order dated 13.09.2022, hence, under these circumstances also the revision petition was not maintainable, rather the appeal under Section 223 of the Act of 1955 was maintainable, thus, this writ [2025:RJ-JP:21220] (5 of 8) [CW-5152/2020] petition has become infructuous. Counsel submits that as per the mandate, contained under Section 2(2) CPC, decree shall be deemed to include the rejection of plaint, hence, under such circumstances, the appeal is maintainable against such like orders and the revision petition is not maintainable. 7. Heard and considered the submissions made at the Bar and perused the material available on record. 8. Perusal of the record indicates that in a suit filed by the petitioners, an application under Section 11 CPC was submitted by the applicants/strangers Sualal, Kishan Lal, Kanaram, Pokharmal and Bhuri Devi for rejection of the aforesaid plaint by treating the same as barred by res judicata and the said application submitted by those applicants was allowed by the SDO vide judgement dated 10.10.2012 and the suit filed by the petitioners was rejected. 9. Aggrieved by the aforesaid judgment, the petitioners preferred a revision petition before the Board and the same was rejected without entering into the merits of the case, but on a technical count that revision petition against the judgment dated 10.10.2012 was not maintainable. 10. Aggrieved by the aforesaid, the petitioners approached this Court by way of filing S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.3153/2014 and the same was disposed of by this Court vide order dated 28.10.2014 with the following observation and directions which read as under:- “By this writ petition, a challenge is made to the order passed by the Board of Revenue whereby the revision petition preferred by the petitioners was dismissed as not maintainable. It is in view of the fact that earlier the petitioners [2025:RJ-JP:21220] (6 of 8) [CW-5152/2020] had preferred a revenue suit, which was dismissed on an application filed by the respondent/s under Section 11 of the C.P.C. The doctrine of resjudicata was applied, thus suit was dismissed on the aforesaid ground alone. The petitioners preferred a revision petition, however, it was dismissed by the Board of Revenue. It was after holding that suit having been dismissed and decree is drawn, the order is appealable under Section 223 of the Rajasthan Tenancy Act, 1955 (for short “Act of 1955”). There is nothing on record to show that decree was finally drawn by the SDO Court. It is not coming out as to on what basis, the Board of Revenue recorded its finding about decree. If no decree has been drawn, the appeal would not be maintainable under Section 223 of the Act of 1955, thus after hearing all the parties, I am of the opinion that matter needs to be remanded back to the Board of Revenue for afresh adjudication of the revision petition. They should draw conclusions about drawing of the decree with a specific date when it was drawn and if, no decree was drawn then to hear and decide the revision petition on its merit. The remand of case would not mean that matter is necessarily to be decided on merit, but it would be only when the decree is not drawn in pursuance to the order of SDO Court or the decree is yet to be drawn, thus the revision petition would not be maintainable. The issue aforesaid may be examined minutely and be decided by the Board of Revenue and if, it is decided in favour of the respondent/s, then the petitioner/s would be at liberty to avail the remedy of appeal under Section 223 of the Act of [2025:RJ-JP:21220] (7 of 8) [CW-5152/2020] 1955. If the decree cannot be drawn or is not drawn, then the revision petition would be maintainable and would be decided accordingly. With the aforesaid, the order passed by the Board of Revenue is set aside. The writ petition stands disposed of accordingly. Both the parties are directed to remain present before the Board of Revenue on 13th November, 2014.” 11. While deciding the aforesaid writ petition, this Court has opined that the matter needs to be remitted to the Board for its fresh adjudication of the revision petition. The Board was directed to draw conclusions with regard to drawing of the decree with a specific date when the same was drawn and if no such degree was drawn, then the revision petition be heard and decided, on its merit. This Court made it clear that remanding the matter back would not necessarily mean that it should be decided on its merit, but it would only be when the decree is not drawn in pursuance of the order of the SDO court or the decree is yet to be drawn, thus, the revision petition would not be maintainable. 12. After passing the aforesaid order, the matter was reheard by the Board and the revision petition of the petitioners was again rejected on account of non-maintainability, as no decree was drawn till that date. 13. In the considered opinion of this Court, the Revisional Court has not committed any error in passing the order impugned. This Court does not find non-compliance on the part of the Revisional Authority as no decree had been drawn till that date. The revision petition was not maintainable, the only remedy which was [2025:RJ-JP:21220] (8 of 8) [CW-5152/2020] available to the petitioners was to file an appeal and now, they are at liberty to file appeal under Section 223 of the Act of 1955 as the decree has been drawn by the SDO on 13.09.2022. In case, any appeal is preferred by the petitioners, within a period of one month from today before the Revenue Appellate Authority, it is expected from the Revenue Appellate Authority to hear and decide the same on its merits, after affording due opportunity of hearing to all the respective parties, ignoring the period of limitation, expeditiously as early as possible. 14. Stay application and all pending application stands disposed of. (ANOOP KUMAR DHAND),J Aayush Sharma /126