Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

2.4 It is stated that Revision Application filed by the appellants came to be rejected by the learned SSRD by an order dated 05.01.2018. It is stated that however while rejecting the said application filed by the appellants, it is specifically observed by the learned SSRD that the civil rights of the parties can be adjudicated by the competent civil court.

- original plaintiffs came to know about the mutation of entry in the revenue record in land in question on the basis of the alleged sale deed, which was not registered and based on type copy of the sale deed, which was produced by the respondent nos.1 to 3, such entry was mutated and as soon as the appellants - original plaintiffs came to know about the mutation of such entry, immediately they have challenged the said entry by filing RTS Appeal before the learned Deputy Collector, however, the said RTS Appeal came to be rejected, against which, the appellants have approached the learned Collector but the said RTS Appeal also came to be rejected, which led to filing of Revision Application before learned SSRD, where the learned SSRD rejected the said Revision Application filed by the appellants however while passing said order, the learned SSRD has specifically observed that the dispute involved in the matter pertains to civil in nature and the competent civil court has got jurisdiction to decide the civil rights of the parties and, NEUTRAL CITATION C/FA/1745/2023 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 23/08/2023 undefined therefore, the suit was filed by the appellant before the learned Court below on 19.02.2021, which was well within the time limit of the order of learned SSRD. It is, therefore, submitted that by no stretch of imagination, it can be construed that the suit was filed belatedly and it was barred by law of limitation and entire suit is dismissed by the learned Court below on the said premise and, therefore, the present appeal is preferred by the appellants before this Court. Learned advocate submitted that it is an admitted position of fact that the cause of action to file suit before the competent court would be started to be commenced from the date of rejection of the revision application filed before the learned SSRD, therefore immediately within a period of three years, the suit was preferred before the competent court, which has jurisdiction to try the suit involving civil dispute between the parties. Learned advocate submitted that the learned Court below ought to have considered before rejecting the suit at threshold that the appellants - original plaintiffs have got new cause of cause upon the reasons assigned by the revenue authorities and the appellants - original plaintiffs have acted bonafidely and as per the legal advice given by the concerned persons, instead of filing suit before the NEUTRAL CITATION C/FA/1745/2023 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 23/08/2023 undefined competent civil court, they have approached the concerned revenue authorities and challenged the revenue entries. It is submitted that at the time of disposing of the revenue proceedings by an order dated 04.01.2018, the learned SSRD has made specific observation to approach the civil court to adjudicate the issue involved in the matter and pursuance thereto, suit was filed well within time i.e. on 19.02.2021.

- original plaintiffs were not in a position to know about the execution of the sale deed as it was not registered in the office till 2009 and in absence of registered sale deed, it cannot be said that there was delay on the part of the appellants to file suit belatedly. Learned advocate submitted that it is also evident from the evidence available on record that as per the case of the original defendants, the so-called sale deed was executed in the year 1980, which was registered in the year 2009 and that too, after the RTS Appeal was preferred by the appellants before the revenue authority and the said document itself goes to show that the appeal was preferred in the year 2008 before the revenue authority and sale deed was registered by the concerned authority in the year 2009 and at that relevant point of time, legal advice was given to the appellants - original plaintiffs that entries mutated in the revenue records are nullity and void ab initio and, therefore, instead of preferring suit, those entries are required to be challenged before the Deputy Collector by way of preferring RTS Appeal and, therefore, they have challenged such proceedings initially before the learned Additional NEUTRAL CITATION C/FA/1745/2023 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 23/08/2023 undefined Collector and reached upto the learned SSRD, where the learned SSRD has specifically made observation that the civil right is involved in the matter and said dispute can be resolved by the civil court and, therefore immediately within a period of three years, suit had been preferred and the said fact ought to have been taken into consideration by the learned Judge at the time of deciding an application filed under Order 7, Rule 11(d) of the Code by the respondents - original defendants, however, the learned Judge failed to consider the material and evidence available on record in its true spirit and by giving undue weightage to the non- important material and conveniently discarded the important documents, upon which, the appellants - original plaintiffs have put reliance and by doing so, the learned Judge has committed grave error, which is required to be rectified by allowing the present appeal.

13.4 The learned Deputy Collector, Viramgam has rejected RTS Appeal preferred by the original plaintiffs on 13.01.2010. 13.5 The original plaintiffs challenged the said order before the Collector by way of preferring Appeal under the provision of Section 108(5) of the Bombay Land Revenue NEUTRAL CITATION C/FA/1745/2023 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 23/08/2023 undefined Code, which was also dismissed by the Collector vide order dated 12.03.2013. 13.6 The appellants original plaintiffs carried the said orders before the learned SSRD by filing Revision application, however, the learned SSRD has disposed of the said Revision Application preferred by the original plaints on 05.01.2018. However the original plaintiffs have not challenged the orders of the Deputy Collector, Collector and the learned SSRD before any higher authority. In short, the order passed by the learned SSRD has attained finality. 13.7 On 19.02.2021, suit was preferred, wherein notice was issued, which was duly served upon the original defendants, who appeared through their advocates. Thereafter, an application under Order 7, Rule 11 of the Code was prepared, which was allowed by the learned Court below on 03.12.2022 and the said judgment and order has been assailed in the present First Appeal.