1 D.B. CIVIL SPECIAL APPEAL (WRIT) NO.1182/2008 Ramdeo & anr. Vs. Bhanwarlal & Ors. Date of Judgment :: August 04, 2008. HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR.NARAYAN ROY HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE MOHAMMAD RAFIQ Mr. G.L. Pareek, Sr.Advocate assisted by Mr. A.L. Verma for the appellant(s). Mr.Satya Narain Kumawat for the caveator-respondent(s). *** This appeal is directed against the judgment of the learned Single Judge dated 9.4.2008 whereby the writ petition of the appellant was dismissed and judgments passed by the Sub Divisional Officer, Sambhar Lake dated 30.4.1997 dismissing the revenue suit and dated 14.5.2002 passed by the Revenue Appellate Authority further dated 15.7.2002 passed by the Board of Revenue dismissing his first and second appeal, were upheld. Shri G.L. Pareek, learned Senior counsel for the appellants has argued that the appeal was dismissed by the Revenue Appellate Authority on the ground of delay of 167 days whereas the fact of the matter was that the appeal was filed immediately after the lawyer appearing on behalf of the appellant came to know about the delivery of the judgment. Although, the judgment was shown to have been delivered on 30.4.1997 but actually the judgment was received in the office in October 1997 much after the SDO concerned relinquished the charge of that office in August 1997. No sooner the lawyer came to know about the judgment and received copy thereof on 6.10.1997, the appeal was filed. The appeal thus could not be rejected on the ground of delay. The Revenue Appellate Authority ought to have decided the matter on merit. Learned counsel further argued that simultaneously the Revenue 2 Appellate Authority has also decided the matter on merits by upholding the judgment of the SDO. The SDO erred in law in not decreeing the suit because the defendants-respondents did not put in appearance inspite of being served with notice of suit. Once the suit was proceeded ex-parte, all that was pleaded by the plaintiff-appellant should have been taken as proved because there was no contest. The Board of Revenue also erred in law in dismissing the second appeal. The learned Single Jude has wrongly dismissed the writ petition by not examining any of the arguments of the learned counsel for the appellants. Shri Satya Narain Kumawat, learned counsel for the respondents opposed the appeal and submitted that the appeal filed by the appellants was dismissed by the Revenue Appellate Authority not only on delay but also on merits and the Board of Revenue also considered the appeal on merits. In fact, both the courts below summoned the record of the court of SDO and examined the matter on merits, and therefore, it was wrong to state that the matter was decided only on the question of limitation. Learned counsel argued that only two handwritten documents were produced by the plaintiff and both were undated. Neither the original documents were produced nor any witness to prove those documents was produced. Such documents were therefore rightly held to be inadmissible in evidence by all the courts below. Reliance in this connection has been placed on the judgment of the Supreme Court in Kalidindi Venkata Subbaraju & Ors. Vs. Chintalapati Subbaraju & Ors., AIR 1968 SC 947. Learned counsel argued that the question of delay became inconsequential because when the matter was decided on merit by all the courts below, the learned Single Judge was therefore, justified in dismissing the writ petition. 3 Upon hearing the arguments of the parties and perusing the impugned judgments, we find that the learned SDO dismissed the suit filed by the plaintiff because two handwritten documents namely, Ex.1 and 2 were both photo copies and not original and were found to be undated and no witness to prove their genuineness was produced. The only girdawari slip was produced as Ex.3 pertaining to Samwat 2012 but no subsequent girdawari entries of Samwat 2012-14 and 2030-33 were produced to prove that the plaintiff was in continuous possession of the disputed land. We are not inclined to upheld the argument that merely because the defendants did not appear to contest the matter, the revenue suit filed by the appellant ought to have been decreed. When a plaintiff approaches the court asserting a particular case, it is incumbent upon him to prove his case and his case cannot be taken as proved just because of the default on the part of the defendants. Here, in the instant case, the plaintiff produced two handwritten documents which were unstamped and unregistered and were photocopies and were not proved by any witness. In the face of such a situation, learned trial court, in our view, was justified in not finding the case of the plaintiff as proved and dismissing the revenue suit. The learned Revenue Appellate Authority as also the Board of Revenue were, therefore, also justified in dismissing the appeal. We, therefore, do not find any infirmity in the order passed by the learned Single Judge dismissing the writ petition of the appellants. This appeal is accordingly dismissed. (MOHAMMAD RAFIQ),J. (NARAYAN ROY),CJ. Skant/-