1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JAIPUR BENCH, JAIPUR ORDER S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 10103/2008 {Jagdish Versus Board of Revenue & Others} Date of Order :: 17th September, 2008 PRESENT HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE NARENDRA KUMAR JAIN Mr. Nawal Singh for the petitioner BY THE COURT: Heard learned counsel for the petitioner. 2. This writ petition on behalf of the plaintiff – petitioner is directed against the impugned order dated 27th June, 2008 passed by the Revenue Board, whereby the Revenue Board allowed the revision petition filed by the defendant-respondents and allowed them to file their written statement before 14th July, 2008 at the cost of Rs.500/-, failing which the order passed by the S.D.O. closing the written statement will stand as it is. 3. It appears that the plaintiff- petitioner filed a suit wherein the defendants did not file their written statement inspite of time granted to them and when the defendants did not file the written statement, then it was closed by S.D.O. Being aggrieved with the same, 2 the defendants preferred a revision petition before the Revenue Board. The Revenue Board after hearing the Government Counsel as well as the counsel for the defendants-petitioners allowed the revision petition ex-parte granting time to defendants to file written statement. 4. The grievance of the petitioner is that Revenue Board did not issue notice to plaintiff–petitioner before passing the impugned order, therefore, the same is violative of principles of natural justice. His further grievance is that defendants concealed the important fact that they were granted six opportunities by the trial court for filing the written statement. The grievance of the plaintiff–petitioner may be justified according to law as it was not proper on the part of the Revenue Board to allow the revision petition without giving notice to plaintiff – petitioner but in case any notice now is issued to defendants-respondents of this writ petition, then it will further delay the plaintiff's suit itself. At the most, the matter may be remanded back to the Revenue Board to decide the revision petition after hearing both the parties. So far as the order passed by the Revenue Board is concerned, it appears to be 3 justified as no rights of the parties have been decided but a last opportunity has been granted to the defendants to file their written statement by a particular date on payment of cost. Even if six opportunities were granted to defendants to file written statement but they failed to do so, the Revenue Board being a revisional court was fully justified in granting one more opportunity as last opportunity to the defendants to file written statement. To file the written statement is a valuable right which should not normally be taken away. The Revenue Board has passed a time bound order making it clear that in case the written statement is not filed before 14th July, 2008 the order by the SDO closing the written statement will stand as it is. In these circumstances, I do not find this case to be fit one to interfere in the impugned order. The writ petition is, accordingly, dismissed in limine. (NARENDRA KUMAR JAIN),J. DK