-1- SAW 285/2010 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN, JAIPUR BENCH, JAIPUR O R D E R D.B. Civil Special Appeal (W) No.285 of 2010 IN S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.3870 of 2010. Jagdish Prasad son of Shri Nathu Ram VERSUS Board of Revenue for Rajasthan, Ajmer and Others Date of Order :::: 21th April, 2010 Hon'ble Mr. Justice Dalip Singh Hon'ble Mr. Justice M.N. Bhandari Mr. Anil Kumar Sharma, Counsel for the appellant Mr. Aditya Narain Sharma. Counsel for the respondents *** Per Court : Aggrieved by the order dated 30th March, 2010, this special appeal has been preferred. It is a case where the appellant made an application under Section 10 of C.P.C. before the competent Revenue Court hearing the matter for opening of mutation entry. Proceedings were taken up pursuant to the remand order by the appellate Authority after cancelling the mutation opened in the name of the appellant. It was directed that after hearing the parties, mutation may be opened. The appellant made an application under Section 10 of C.P.C. on the ground that the suit for partition has also been filed by the same party, who has made an application for opening of mutation entry. In view of two -2- SAW 285/2010 litigations regarding same property and in between the same party, proceedings regarding opening of mutation entry should be stayed pending suit. The application so made under Section 10 of C.P.C. was dismissed followed by dismissal of his revision petition by the Board of Revenue. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that when subject matter of two proceedings are same then pursuant to the provisions of Section 10 of C.P.C. mutation proceedings should have been stayed, which otherwise will avoid multiplicity of litigation. The competent authority, however, dismissed the application summarily followed by dismissal of revision petition by the learned Board of Revenue referring to a judgment not applicable to the facts of the case. Prayer is thus to set aside, the order of revenue authorities so also the judgment in the writ petition. We have considered the submissions of the learned counsel for the appellant and perused the record. A perusal of the order passed by the learned Board of Revenue shows that all the grounds taken, herein were noticed and dealt with. The learned Board of Revenue was of the opinion that the mutation proceedings are fiscal in nature and does not create a right in any of the party. In view of the aforesaid, it was made clear that pendency of partition suit cannot bar to continue fiscal proceedings and thereby application under Section 10 of -3- SAW 285/2010 C.P.C. was not entertained. The learned Single Judge not only noticed the aforesaid, but further gone into the matter in reference to the remand order where a direction was given to the competent authority to hear the parties for opening of mutation entry. Compliance of that order is required to be made and cannot be subjected or to be stayed pending suit for partition. We do not find any error in the judgment of the learned Single Judge so as to call for our interference. In view of the aforesaid, we do not find any merit in this special appeal, hence, the same is dismissed summarily. The stay application also stands dismissed. (M.N. Bhandari) J. (Dalip Singh), J. ashok/