CWP 1822/2010 [1] IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JAIPUR BENCH SB Civil Writ Petition No.1822/2010 Ravindra Kumar Versus. The Rajasthan Board of Revenue, Ajmer & ors. DATE OF ORDER : 12/03/2010 HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AJAY RASTOGI Mr. RP Garg, for petitioner. Instant writ petition is directed against the order dated 17/11/2009 passed by the Board of Revenue Rajasthan, Ajmer accepting the application filed by the plaintiffs- non- petitioners under Section 5 of the Limitation Act seeking condonation of delay read with Section 151 CPC and the appeal has been posted ot be heard on merits. It has been alleged in the petition that the plaintiffs-non-petitioners filed a suit before the SDO, Bharatpur under Section 88 and 89 of the Rajasthan Tenancy Act, 1955 which was dismissed on 10/05/1999 against which appeal was preferred before the Revenue Appellate Authority which was accepted vide judgment & decree dt. 29/03/2000 against which the present defendant-petitioner filed a review petition under Section 229 of the Rajasthan Tenancy Act. While accepting the review petition, the judgment dated 29/03/2000 was set aside by the Revenue Appellate Authority vide judgment dated CWP 1822/2010 [2] 31/12/2002 against which the plaintiffs-non- petitioners preferred a writ petition before the High Court CWP-365/2008 and while examining the grievance, which they raised, this Court disposed of the writ petition on 17/01/2008 with an observation that in view of efficacious remedy available to the plaintiffs-non-petitioners before the Board of Revenue, it will not be appropriate to entertain the writ petition. However, it was further observed that if the appeal is preferred, the Board of Revenue may decide the matter on merit expeditiously in accordance with law. It appears that in terms of the directions of the Court, the plaintiffs-non-petitioners preferred appeal and filed application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act read with Section 151 CPC. The learned Board of revenue, after taking into consideration the order of this Court and material available on record while acceping the application filed under Section 5 of the Limitation Act observed to hear on merits, which is impugned in the present writ petition. Counsel submits that this Court directed the Board of Revenue to decide the matter on merits and it was expected to decide the matter independently on merits on the basis of material on record. In support of his submission counsel CWP 1822/2010 [3] has placed reliance upon a judgment of the Apex Court reported in AIR 1998 (SC) 2276 (P.K. Ramachandran Vs. State of Kerala & anr.). In the opinion of this Court, what has been urged does not have any merit for the reason that against the order dated 31/12/2002 passed in the Review petition the plaintiffs-non-petitioners bonafidely approached this Court and preferred writ petition being not aware of the remedy available to them of approaching to the Board of Revenue against the order of Revenue Appellate Authority passed in Review Petition. Taking into consideration the material, which has come on record, this Court, while disposing of the writ petition, directed the Board of Revenue to decide the matter on merits and the laerned Board of Revenue, while taking into consideration the material available on record and what was observed by this Court, in the fitness of the things, considered it appropriate to allow the application filed under Section 5 of the Limitation Act. The judgment on which the counsel has placed reliance is of no assistance in the facts and circumstances of the instant case. Consequently, the writ petition has no substance and it is accordingly dismissed. [AJAY RASTOGI], J. Raghu-1822-CW-2010-final.doc