CW 12003/10 //1// In the High Court of Judicature for Rajasthan Jaipur Bench ** Civil Writ Petition No.12003/2010 Har Lal & Anr Versus Board of Revenue & Ors Date of Order ::: 27/09/2010 Hon'ble Mr. Justice Ajay Rastogi Mr. Gajendra S.Rathore, for petitioners. Instant petition has been filed assailing order dt.03/08/2010 (Ann.IV) whereby Board of Revenue, Ajmer rejected revision/ TA/Alwar/4430/2010 on the ground that it is not maintainable filed U/s 230 of Rajasthan Tenancy Act, 1955. It appears from the record that revenue suit U/s 188 of Tenancy Act was filed by the respondent before Sub-Divisional Officer, Alwar on 21/07/2006 but certificate issued by Naib-Tehsildar, Bahadurpur on 02/05/2006 was not appended alongwith revenue suit. However, at a later stage, an application was filed U/O 7 R.14, CPC for taking certified copy of certificate dt. 02/05/2006 on record and in reply thereto, petitioner raised objection that it was the duty of respondent plaintiff to place document on record if considered to be relevant alongwith revenue suit and after five years of the proceedings being initiated, filing of document at a later stage would not be permitted; and there is no relevancy of CW 12003/10 //2// document in regard to the dispute raised in the revenue suit. However vide order dt.13/07/2010 (Ann.3) the SDO allowed application of the plaintiff with costs without assigning reasons thereof; against which revision petition filed by petitioner U/s 230 read with S.221 of Tenancy Act was dismissed by the Board on the premise that in the light of judgment reported in 2009(2) RRT p.748 & 849, revision petition is not maintainable. Counsel submits that no reasons have been assigned by the authority while accepting application of the plaintiff vide order dt. 13/07/2010 and at the same time, revisional authority has also committed an error in rejecting the revision petition on the ground of its maintainability. The reasons are not forthcoming in the order dt.13/07/2010 impugned before the Revisional Authority and it was indeed expected from the authority to assign reasons particularly when objections were raised for taking document on record. But without examining legality of the orders passed by the Board of Revenue in exercise of revisional powers U/s 230 of Tenancy Act, this Court has independently examined the document which the plaintiff has sought to take on record vide application CW 12003/10 //3// dt.05/07/2010 (Ann.1) where in para 1, it has been averred that certificate was issued by Naib Tehsildar on 02/05/2006 – certified copy whereof was placed by him while applying for loan before the Bank and it has been averred that easrlier certified copy was not available as such it could not have been filed at that point of time, which shows bonafide on the part of respondent-plaintiff for not placing document in question earlier. The document which the plaintiff wanted to place on record is a certified copy of certificate dt. 02/05/2006 issued by Naib-Tehsildar Bahadurpur, which in ordinary course could not have been disputed but that would not preclude the petitioner from raising objection in regard to document having been taken on record on payment of costs by the authority under order impugned. As observed (supra), when objection was raised, reasons ought to have been assigned by the authority but in the facts of instant case (supra), while the Court is satisfied with the document which the plaintiff intended to place on record, in the absence of any prejudice being shown by petitioner, even if reasons being not assigned by the authority while passing order impugned in the light of observation (supra) may not be of any significance which may call CW 12003/10 //4// for interference. Consequently, writ petition fails and is hereby dismissed. However, petitioner will be at liberty to raise objection in regard to document having been taken on record vide order impugned, available under the law. (Ajay Rastogi), J. K.Khatri/p4/ 12003CW2010Sep27Ds.doc