Supreme Court - Daily Orders
Jeth Puri vs Bool Puri on 2 September, 2014
Bench: Jagdish Singh Khehar, Arun Mishra
1
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CIVIL APPEAL NO. 8417 OF 2014
(Arising from SLP(C) No.12394 of 2008)
Jeth Puri and others ..Appellants
versus
Bool Puri and another ..Respondents
O R D E R
The delay in filing the application for substitution is condoned. The applications for substitution are allowed in terms of the prayer made.
Leave granted.
In 1996, the respondents filed a suit being Revenue Original Suit No.171 of 1996, against the appellants, seeking a declaration of “khatedari rights”. In addition, the respondents sought a permanent injunction, besides, correction of the record. The instant declaration was sought in respect of Khasra No. 274/1, measuring 8 bighas of land, situated in the revenue estate of village Dalpat Nagar, Tehsil Shergarh. On the culmination of the proceedings before the Assistant Collector, Jodhpur, the suit filed by the respondents was decreed vide order Signature Not Verified dated 14.6.2001. The respondents were declared Digitally signed by Parveen Kumar Chawla “khatedars” Date: 2014.09.03 16:50:41 IST Reason: of Khasra No. 274/1 measuring 8 bighas, details whereof have been depicted hereinabove.
Dissatisfied with the order dated 14.6.2001, the 2 appellants preferred an appeal before the Revenue Appellate Authority, Jodhpur. By an order dated 18.10.2001, the Revenue Appellate Authority accepted the appeal, and remanded the matter to the Assistant Collector, Jodhpur to re-adjudicate upon the controversy, by allowing the appellants to cross-examine the witnesses PW3 and PW4 (who were examined by the respondents before the Assistant Collector, Jodhpur). Additionally, the direction of remand required, the Assistant Collector, Jodhpur to permit the appellants to lead evidence in defence.
The respondents challenged the order of the Revenue Appellate Authority dated 18.10.2001, before the Board of Revenue, Ajmer. The Board of Revenue, Ajmer, by an order dated 3.3.2003 accepted the appeal preferred by the respondents, and directed the Revenue Appellate Authority to adjudicate upon the controversy on merits, on the basis of the material already available before the Revenue Appellate Authority. Needless to mention that the instant order dated 3.3.2003 had the effect of precluding the appellants to cross-examine the witnesses PW 3 and PW4 (examined by the respondents before the Assistant Collector, Jodhpur). It also precluded the appellants to lead evidence in defence before the Assistant Collector. It is not a matter of dispute that the instant order dated 3.3.2003 was not assailed by the appellants. The appellants accepted the above order, and appeared before the Revenue Appellate Authority for adjudication of the matter in terms of the remand order dated 3.3.2003. Thereupon, the matter came to be re-adjudicated by 3 the Revenue Appellate Authority.
By an order dated 11.7.2003, the Revenue Appellate Authority again remanded the controversy for re-adjudication to the Assistant Collector, Jodhpur. On this occasion, the Revenue Appellate Authority required the framing of a fresh issue on the factum of possession. The Assistant Collector, Jodhpur, was directed to re-adjudicate the matter after permitting the rival parties to lead evidence, on the factum of possession.
The order dated 11.07.2003 passed by the Revenue Appellate Authority, was assailed by the respondents yet again, before the Board of Revenue, Ajmer. The Board of Revenue, Ajmer, accepted the appeal preferred by the respondents by its order dated 23.09.2005. While disposing of the above appeal, the Board of Revenue directed the Revenue Appellate Authority to re-adjudicate the controversy, in terms of, and in consonance with, the order dated 3.3.2003. It is not a matter of dispute that order dated 23.09.2005 passed by the Board of Revenue was not assailed by the appellants. In fact, the appellants, having accepted the above order dated 23.09.2005, appeared before the Revenue Appellate Authority, for adjudication of the matter in terms of the remand order dated 23.09.2005.
It is in the above circumstances, that the Revenue Appellate Authority took upon itself the determination of the controversy on merits. The matter was disposed of by an order dated 24.12.2005. By the instant order dated 24.12.2005, the earlier order passed by the Assistant Collector, Jodhpur, 4 decreeing the suit in favour of the respondents dated 14.6.2001, was sought to be affirmed.
The order passed by the Board of Revenue dated 17.10.2006 was assailed by the appellants by filing S.B.Civil Writ Petition No. 4408 of 2007 before the High Court of Judicature for Rajasthan at Jodhpur (hereinafter referred to as, the 'High Court'). A single Bench of the High Court, dismissed the above writ petition, on 3.8.2007. The order dated 3.8.2007, was assailed by the appellants through an intra court appeal. D.B.Civil Special Appeal No. 825 of 2007 preferred by the appellants was also dismissed by the High Court on 11.09.2007.
In the facts and circumstances of the case, narrated hereinabove, the appellants have approached this Court, so as to assail the order of the Board of Revenue dated 17.10.2006, the order of the High Court in S.B.Civil Writ Petition No. 4408 of 2007 dated 3.8.2007, and finally, the order passed in D.B.Civil Special Appeal No. 825 of 2007 dated 11.09.2007.
During the course of hearing, the primary challenge raised by the appellants was, against the order dated 3.3.2003. It was the contention of the learned counsel for the appellants, that the rights of the appellants could not be circumscribed by the order dated 3.3.2003. In fact, the primary prayer made in this appeal, was to the effect, that the appellants cannot be made to suffer on account of any act/omission/error of the counsel, or of the Court, in the face of the prayer made in the writ petition itself. Alternatively, it was submitted that, the 5 absence/presence of the challenge to the order dated 3.3.2003, would not have any legal consequence, because in either case it was open to the appellants to challenge the omission, as well as, the ultimate orders dated 14.06.2001 (passed by the Assistant Collector, Jodhpur) dated 24.12.2005 (passed by the Revenue Appellate Authority), and finally, the order dated 17.10.2006 (rendered by the Board of Revenue, Ajmer).
We have given our thoughtful consideration to the submissions advanced at the hands of the learned counsel for the appellants. It is not possible for us to accept the contention of the learned counsel for the appellants, that the issue pertains to a mistake at the hands of the learned counsel representing the appellants before various authorities, details whereof have already been narrated hereinabove. In our considered view, it is not open to the appellants, to assail the order dated 3.3.2003, passed by the Board of Revenue, Ajmer, on account of the fact that the appellants, having accepted the above order, appeared before the Revenue Appellate Authority, which was bound to dispose of the appeal remanded to it in consonance with order of the Board of Revenue, dated 3.3.2003. Yet again, when a further order was passed by the Board of Revenue dated 23.09.2005 reiterating the direction dated 3.3.2003 to the Revenue Appellate Authority to adjudicate. The controversy was liable to be determined by the Revenue Appellate Authority within the four corners of the directions dated 3.3.2003. The appellants again accepted the order dated 6 23.09.2005, and appeared before the Revenue Appellate Authority, and got the matter adjudicated in consonance with the order dated 3.3.2003. Neither of the two orders dated 3.3.2003 and 23.09.2005 were assailed by the appellants before any higher authorities. In fact, the adjudicatory process was allowed to proceed further in consonance with the above orders. It is now not open to the appellants, either to contend that the lack of challenge should not prejudice their claim. Nor can a challenge be raised by raising a shield, on account of a mistake by the counsel. It is clearly not open to the appellants, to plead, that the appellants are not bound by the above-stated orders dated 3.3.2003 and 23.9.2005, which had admittedly attained finality, on having been accepted by the appellants. In the above factual scenario, it is not open to the appellants to challenge the remand orders dated 3.3.2003 and 23.9.2005, in the present proceedings.
For the reasons recorded hereinabove, we find no merit in this appeal, and the same is accordingly hereby dismissed.
…........................J.
[JAGDISH SINGH KHEHAR]
NEW DELHI; …........................J.
SEPTEMBER 02, 2014. [ARUN MISHRA]
7
ITEM NO.1 COURT NO.7 SECTION XV
S U P R E M E C O U R T O F I N D I A
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
Petition(s) for Special Leave to Appeal (C) No(s). 12394/2008 (Arising out of impugned final judgment and order dated 11/01/2008 in DBCSA No. 825/2007 passed by the High Court Of Rajasthan At Jodhpur) JETH PURI & ORS. Petitioner(s) VERSUS BOOL PURI & ANR. Respondent(s) (with appln(s) for substitution of deceased petitioner and interim relief and office report)(for final disposal) Date : 02/09/2014 This petition was called on for hearing today. CORAM :
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JAGDISH SINGH KHEHAR HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ARUN MISHRA For Petitioner(s) Mr. M.R. Calla, Sr. Adv.
Ms. Pratiksha Sharma, Adv.
Mr. Ankit Acharya, Adv.
for Mr. Mohan Pandey,AOR(NP) For Respondent(s) Mr. S.K. Kheshote, Sr. Adv.
Mr. H.D. Thanvi, Adv.
for Mr. Sarad Kumar Singhania,AOR(NP) UPON hearing the counsel the Court made the following O R D E R The delay in filing the application for substitution is allowed. The applications for substitution are allowed in terms of the prayer made.
Leave granted.
The appeal is dismissed in terms of the signed order.
(Parveen Kr. Chawla) (Phoolan Wati Arora)
Court Master Assistant Registrar
[signed order is placed on the file]