[2026:RJ-JP:17299-DB] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR D.B. Civil Special Appeal (Writ) No. 39/2024 1. Ramsahay Son Of Shri Shrawan, (Since Deceased) Through Legal Heirs. 1/1. Hanuman Sahay Son Of Late Shri Ramsahay, Aged About 59 Years, Village Bilawa, Bujurg, Tehsil Sanganer, District Jaipur (Rajasthan.) 1/2. Kailash Alias Kalu Son Of Late Shri Ramsahay, R/o Village Bilwa, Bujurg, Tehsil Sanganer, District Jaipur (Rajasthan) 1/3. Mukesh Son Of Late Shri Ramsahay, Aged About 38 Years, R/o Village Bilawa Bujurg, Tehsil Sanganer, 1/4. Kaushal Devi D/o Late Shri Ramsahay, Aged About 46 Years, R/o Kaota, Tehsil Bassi, District Jaipur (Rajasthan.) 1/5. Raju D/o Late Shri Ramsahay, Aged About 41 Years, R/o Kanota, Tehsil Bassi, District Jaipur (Rajasthan) 1/6. Nanchi D/o Late Shri Ramsahay, R/o Aradhpanpura, Ajmer Road, Tehsil Sanganer, District Jaipur. 1/7. 2. Shanti D/o Late Shri Ramsahay, Aged About 36 Years, R/o Kuthada, Tehsil Bassi, District Jaipur (Rajasthan.) Sohan Son Of Shri Shrawan, (Since Deceased), Through Legal Heirs. 2/1. Smt. Kailashi Devi Wife Of Late Shri Sohan, Resident Of Village Beelwa Kalan Tehsil Sanganer, District Jaipur (Rajasthan) 2/2. Sitaram Son Of Late Shri Sohan, Resident Of Village Beelwa Kalan Tehsil Sanganer, District Jaipur (Rajasthan) 2/3. Babu Lal Son Of Late Shri Sohan, Resident Of Village Beelwa Kalan Tehsil Sanganer, District Jaipur (Rajasthan) 2/4. Sumitra Daughter Of Late Shri Sohan Wife Of Gopal, Resident Of Garh, Tehsil Bassi, District Jaipur (Rajasthan) ----Appellants Versus 1. Smt. Shyopyari Devi D/o Shri Narayanlal, W/o Late Shri Sanwalram, R/o Village Jaisinghpura, Buhariya Tehsil Sanganer. District Jaipur Through Power Of Attorney Holder Banshilal Son Of Shri Sanwalram R/o Jaisinghpura, Buhariya Tehsil Sanganer, District Jaipur. [2026:RJ-JP:17299-DB] (2 of 5) [SAW-39/2024] 2. Money Time Trend Fin Private Limited, Through Director Shikhar Chand Jain Son Of Shri Kanhiyalal Jain, R/o Plot No. C-8, Devnagar Tonk Road, Jaipur And Rakesh Kumar Jain Son Of Shri Narendra Kumar Jain, R/o Plot No. Bb- 17-A, Jai Ambey Nagar, Tonk Road, Jaipur (Rajasthan.) 3. State Of Rajasthan, Through Its Tehsildar, Sanganer, Jaipur. 4. 4/1. 4/2. 4/3. 4/4. Smt Mulidevi W/o Shri Jagdish, (Since Deceased) Lal Ram Son Of Late Smt. Muli Devi, Aged About 43 Years, Resident Of Village Bilawa Bujurg, Tehsil Sanganer, District Jaipur (Rajasthan) Chander Prakash Son Of Late Smt. Muli Devi, Aged About 41 Years, Resident Of Village Bilawa Bujurg, Tehsil Sanganer, District Jaipur (Rajasthan) Rajesh Son Of Late Smt. Muli Devi, Aged About 39 Years, Resident Of Village Bilawa Bujurg, Tehsil Sanganer, District Jaipur (Rajasthan) Rameshwari Daughter Of Late Smt. Muli Devi Wife Of Radhey Shyam, Aged About 45 Years, Resident Of Village Raipuriya Burj, Tehsil Chaksu, District Jaipur (Rajasthan) 5. Smt Laxma Devi W/o Shri Ramratan, R/o Village Bilawa Bujurg, Tehsil Sanganer, District Jaipur (Rajasthan) 6. Smt Parvati Devi W/o Shri Shankar Lal, R/o Village Bilawa Bujurg, Tehsil Sanganer, District Jaipur (Rajasthan) 7. Smt Laxma Devi W/o Shri Chauthu (Deceased), R/o Village Bilawa Bujurg, Tehsil Sanganer, District Jaipur (Rajasthan) 8. Jagdish Son Of Shri Chauthu, R/o Village Bilawa Bujurg, Tehsil Sanganer, District Jaipur (Rajasthan) 9. Shankar Son Of Late Shri Ram Ratan, R/o Village Bilawa Bujurg, Tehsil Sanganer, District Jaipur (Rajasthan) [2026:RJ-JP:17299-DB] (3 of 5) [SAW-39/2024] 10. Suraj Son Of Late Shri Ram Ratan, R/o Village Bilawa Bujurg, Tehsil Sanganer, District Jaipur (Rajasthan) 11. Vishnu Son Of Late Shri Ram Ratan, R/o Village Bilawa Bujurg, Tehsil Sanganer, District Jaipur (Rajasthan) 12. Smt Prem Devi D/o Shri Chauthu W/o Shri Ghanshyam, R/o Village Rampura Chaksu, Tehsil Chaksu, District Jaipur (Rajasthan) 13. Smt Sita Devi D/o Ramratan W/o Shri Mahesh, R/o Ramratanpura, Post Kanota, Tehsil Bassi, District Jaipur. 14. Smt Sheela D/o Ramratan W/o Shri Ramavtar, R/o Village Mahaltilawala, Tehsil Sanganer, District Jaipur. ----Respondents For Appellant(s) : Mr. R.K. Mathur, Senior Advocate assisted by Mr. Lucky Sharma & Mr. Aayush Goyal For Respondent(s) : Mr. Saurabh Bhandari HON'BLE THE ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE MR. SANJEEV PRAKASH SHARMA HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE SHUBHA MEHTA Order REPORTABLE 23/04/2026 1. Heard. 2. The challenge before the learned Single Judge by the appellants was to the order passed by the Board of Revenue dated 15.12.2022, whereby while deciding the second appeal preferred by the respondents, the Board of Revenue relied upon the provisions of Order 41 Rule 31 CPC and remanded the case back to the Revenue Appellate Authority (RAA) to decide the appeal afresh by deciding all the issues on the basis of evidence on the ground that it had not followed the mandatory provisions of Order 41 Rule 31 CPC and had not formulated the points of determination. [2026:RJ-JP:17299-DB] (4 of 5) [SAW-39/2024] 3. The learned Single Judge upheld the order passed by the Board of Revenue on the premise that appeal is in continuation of the proceedings of the original Court. While the provisions of CPC are relevant for the purpose of adjudication of revenue disputes, which are taken up by the Revenue Courts, which are not in the ordinary sense, ‘courts’ within the definition of CPC. 4. Time and again, we have held that Revenue Courts are not required to decide revenue disputes strictly by following the procedures and judgment can be given more so, as they are not ‘Courts’ within the meaning of CPC. Hence, there was no occasion for the Board of Revenue to remand the case back merely because the separate issues and points for determination had not been mentioned by the RAA while deciding the first appeal. Even the Apex Court in the case of Arvind Kumar Jaiswal (D) Thr. LR. Vs. Devendra Prasad Jaiswal Varun [SLP (C) No.9172/2020], has taken a view with regard to the powers of the High Court, as First Appellate Court, in relation to the remand, observing as under: “In the present case, the High Court, as the first appellate court, which is also a court of fact and law, has passed an order of remand observing that the judgment of the trial court was, in its opinion, not written as per the mandate of Section 33 and Rule 4(2) and 5 of Order XX of the Code, as the discussion and reasoning on certain aspects was not detailed and elaborate. This is not a case where the evidence is not adduced and on record. In fact, the first portion of the judgment of the High Court elaborately records the contention of the parties and the facts and evidence relied by the parties. In view of the aforesaid, we allow the present appeal, and set aside the impugned judgment and restore the first appeal to its original number before the High Court, to be decided on merits and in accordance with law, as per the provision of order XLI of the Code. As the appeal has been pending for a considerable time, the High court would decide the appeal expeditiously as possible.” [2026:RJ-JP:17299-DB] (5 of 5) [SAW-39/2024] 5. We are of the further view that the powers were fully available to the Board of Revenue to decide the case while deciding the second appeal, as it would not be strictly governed by Section 100 of the CPC and could have gone into all the aspects and evidence, which were recorded. 6. We, therefore, do not concur with the view taken by the learned Single Judge and set aside the impugned judgment dated 06.12.2023. Accordingly, we also set aside the judgment passed by the Board of Revenue dated 15.12.2022 and direct that the second appeal preferred before it under Section 224 of the Rajasthan Tenancy Act, 1955 shall be revived and decided on merits, as early as possible, preferably within a period of six months. 7. With the said observations, the present appeal is allowed. Pending application(s), if any, shall also stand disposed of. (SHUBHA MEHTA),J (SANJEEV PRAKASH SHARMA),ACTING CJ N.GANDHI/RAJAT/111