IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JAIPUR BENCH, JAIPUR O R D E R S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.5454 of 2004. Kajod Mal son of Shri Asha Ram & Others VERSUS The Board of Revenue for Rajasthan, Ajmer & Others Date Of Order ::: 15/04/2008. Hon'ble Mr. Narendra Kumar Jain J. Mr. Rinesh Gupta, Counsel for the petitioners Mr. Zakir Hussain, Counsel for the respondents. By the Court : Heard learned counsel for the parties. Plaintiff/respondent No.4 namely, Bhola Ram, instituted a suit for permanent injunction in respect of disputed land, wherein the summons were issued to the defendant/petitioners. The defendant Nos.1 to 3 appeared through their advocate, after service of summons, but they did not file any written-statement, in-spite of time granted to them from 20.01.1993 to 24.10.1996 and thereafter they remained absent, and in these circumstances an ex-parte order was passed against them on 02.11.1996. The defendant/petitioner No.4 did not appear, in-spite service of summons, therefore, an ex- parte proceedings were drawn against her. The plaintiff placed on record documentary evidence, and also examined PW-1 Bhola Ram, PW-2 Baksha Ram and PW-3 Mohan Lal respectively. The trial court vide its judgment and decree dated 31.12.1996 decreed the suit of the plaintiff ex-parte. Being aggrieved with the same, the defendants preferred an appeal bearing No.18/97 before the Revenue Appellate Authority. It is relevant to mention here that one Bhanwar son of Shri Kajor Mal, defendant no.1, also preferred a separate appeal bearing No.10/97 against the judgment dated 31.12.1996. Both these appeals were consolidated and were dismissed by the judgment dated 03.07.1998. Thereafter, the defendants preferred second appeal before the Revenue Board, which was dismissed vide its judgment dated 30.04.2002. The aforesaid three orders have been challenged by the defendant/petitioners before this Court in the present writ petition, which was filed after a delay of more than two-years-&-four-months i.e. on 07.08.2004. Learned counsel for the defendant/petitioners contended that from the Annexures 1 & 2, it is clear that the disputed land was allotted to the defendants and they are in possession of the same. However, he does not dispute that the Annexures 1 & 2, both, were neither placed on the record before the learned trial Court, nor before the First Appellate Court nor in second appeal, therefore, they were not a part of the record before all the three Courts below. During the course of arguments, the learned counsel for the petitioners contended that the defendants filed an application before the learned trial Court under Order 9 Rule 13, C.P.C. for setting aside the ex-parte decree, but the said application was dismissed on merits by the learned trial Court on 12.12.2002. Thereafter, an appeal was preferred before the Revenue Appellate Court, but the same was also dismissed vide its judgment dated 07.01.2004, then a revision petition was preferred, but the same was also dismissed by the Revenue Board on 06.05.2004. All the three orders of the Courts below were challenged by the defendant Kajormal, before this Court in S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.4455 of 2004, but the same was also dismissed by this Court on 07.11.2005. The aforesaid facts revel that the suit for permanent injunction filed by the plaintiff/respondent no.4 has been decreed by all the three Courts below. The Courts below have recorded a finding that the land, in dispute was allotted to the plaintiff and possession of the same was handed-over to him and he is in possession of the same. This is a pure question of facts and there is a concurrent finding of fact by three Courts below, which cannot be interfered with by this Court in writ jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. Apart from above, it is also relevant to mention here that the defendant also filed an application under Order 9 Rule 13, C.P.C., for setting aside the ex-parte decree, but the same was dismissed and the said order was upheld by the Revenue Appellate Court as well as Revenue Board and also by this Court while rejecting their writ petition, as referred above. All the Courts below have held that the ex-parte decree was rightly passed against the defendants in the facts and circumstances of the present case. The annexure 1 and 2, annexed with the writ petition are not a part of the record of any of the Court below, therefore, the same cannot be considered. In view of above, I do not find any merit in this writ petition and the same is accordingly dismissed with no order as to costs. (Narendra Kumar Jain) J. ASHOK/