1 S.B.CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.6463/2009 (Lok Ram through LRs Vs. Reshama & ors.) DATE OF ORDER : 16th July 2009 HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE DINESH MAHESHWARI Mr. Ravi Paliwal for Mr.Vippin Makkad for the petitioners. … Having heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and having perused the material placed on record, this Court is unable to find a case worth interference in the extra-ordinary writ jurisdiction at the instance of the present petitioners. It appears from the material placed on record that the plaintiff- respondent filed a suit for declaration, partition and perpetual injunction in the Court of Assistant Collector, Rajgarh [Revenue Suit No.304/1997 (86/2001)] that came to be dismissed in default on 25.10.2005 but was restored on 21.04.2008 and was placed for the plaintiff's evidence. Thereafter, on 31.05.2008, the plaintiff moved an application stating that the defendant No.4 Chandgi Ram had expired on 05.09.2006 and the defendant No.5 Prahalad Singh had expired on 05.05.2008; and, while suggesting that the application was within time from the date of restoration of the suit, prayed for substitution of the legal representatives of the deceased defendants. The learned Trial Court proceeded to allow the said application on 31.05.2008 itself with a practically non-speaking order 2 while merely stating that the application was allowed for being in conformity with the legal provisions. The defendants-petitioners preferred a revision petition under Section 230 of the Rajasthan Tenancy Act, 1955 before the Board of Revenue (‘the Board’) seeking to question the aforesaid order dated 31.05.2008. The learned Member of the Board though found that the Trial Court had not specified the reasons for allowing the application but observed that substitution of legal representatives of defendants Nos.4 and 5 was necessary for effectual decision of the suit; and, while declining to interfere and maintaining the order so passed by the Trial Court, the learned Member, however, considered it proper to allow costs in the sum of Rs. 500/- to the petitioners because of the delay in filing the application. It is submitted in challenge to the orders aforesaid that the application as filed by the plaintiff was hopelessly barred by time and then, no cause was stated wherefor delay in filing the application could have been condoned; that the procedural laws are meant for observance and cannot be brushed aside; that with abatement of suit, a valuable right comes existing in favour of other party and such a right cannot be ignored or lightly interfered with; that in the matter of present nature, the cryptic and cursory order as passed by the Trial Court could not have been sustained. It is also suggested that the matter was earlier chosen to be adjourned to another day for the 3 purpose of filing of the reply by the non-applicants but then, while altering the order-sheet, the application was allowed. So far the contents of the order-sheet are concerned, though it is noticed that there is some alteration therein; and it appears that earlier the matter was stated as having been adjourned to 26.06.2008 but such contents were scored out and in the next few lines the order was drawn to the effect that the application stood allowed. However, it does not appear that earlier part of the order- sheet, with the scored out portion, had been of the conclusion of the proceedings for the day; and the final order, bearing the signatures of the presiding officer, cannot be doubted. Moreover, if there was any such doubt or dispute, the matter, in the first place, ought to have been stated only before the Court concerned. Such suggestion merely with reference to some cutting and alterations in the order- sheet does not make a case for interference particularly looking to the purport of the order impugned. True it is that the application was allowed the very day it was moved with a cursory and non-speaking order; and without granting an opportunity to the petitioners to contest the application and even without notice to the proposed legal representatives but then, the learned Member of the Board has considered the matter in revisional jurisdiction and has not found a case worth interference. In the given fact situation, this Court is unable to find a case for interference in 4 writ jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India at the instance of the petitioners, the existing defendants. Interference under Article 227 of the Constitution of India is, sparingly, considered in such kind of cases where the impugned order might lead to substantial failure of justice or to such injury that could be said to be irreparable one to a party to the litigation; or the matters of the like nature. It remains settled that the power under Article 227 is an extra-ordinary one and is not intended to be a substitute for the ordinary revisional or appellate powers, as observed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Shamshad Ahmed and others Vs. Tilak Raj Bajaj (deceased) through LRs and others : (2008) 9 SCC 1 that,- “Though powers of a High Court under Articles 226 and 227 are very wide and extensive over all courts and tribunals throughout the territories in relation to which it exercises jurisdiction, such powers must be exercised within the limits of law. The power is supervisory in nature. The High Court does not act as a court of appeal or a court of error. It can neither review nor reappreciate, nor reweigh the evidence upon which determination of a subordinate court or inferior tribunal purports to be based or to correct errors of fact or even of law and to substitute its own decision for that of the inferior court or tribunal. The powers are required to be exercised most sparingly and only in appropriate cases in order to keep the subordinate courts and inferior tribunals within the limits of law. “ In the present case, even if there had been some lapses and procedural lacunae in the impugned order, the ultimate result is that the subordinate Revenue Courts have chosen to allow the 5 application for substitution of the legal representative of the some of the defendants instead of standing on technicalities and instead of considering the opposition to such application by the existing defendants. In the ultimate analysis, the orders impugned cannot be said to standing at conflict with the interest of justice. In any case, as aforesaid, there appears no reason to consider any objection against the order so passed by the learned Trial Court at the instance of the petitioners, the existing defendants. The petition does not merit admission and is, therefore, rejected. (DINESH MAHESHWARI),J. MK