1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR
--------------------------------------------------------
WRIT REVIEW No. 16 of 2009
AZAD MOHD.
V/S
STATE OF RAJ. & ORS.
Mr. JL PUROHIT, for the appellant / petitioner
Date of Order : 5.5.2009
HON'BLE SHRI N P GUPTA,J.
HON'BLE SHRI H.R.PANWAR,J.
ORDER
—–
Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, and
perused the judgment dt. 16.1.2009 which is sought to be
reviewed.
May be that accidentally the earlier suit no. 4/79
was described to have been filed in Civil Court, and the
decree passed therein having been confirmed upto the Board
of Revenue, while as a matter of fact the suit was filed in
the Court of Sub Divisional Officer, whose decree was
affirmed by the Revenue Appellate Authority, and the matter
was not carried further. Thus the fact does remain, that
appropriate suit was filed before competent court, and that
decree attained finality, on account of having not been
challenged further. Therefore, nothing much turns on this
accidental slip.
2
Then, so far as the arguments on merits are
concerned, a look at the document Annexure-1 of the writ
petition which is judgment rendered in earlier suit no.
4/79 does show, that the issue no. 1 and 2 very much
comprehended the question about Kamla Devi being the
Khatedar tenant, and about Kamla Devi having purchased the
land by registered sale deed dt. 7.2.1975 for a sum of Rs.
8000/- from Kale Khan, and the learned trial court in that
judgment found, that the plaintiff had produced the
certified copy of the sale deed, which is registered
document, and only challenge to the document was, that the
sale deed is forged, as some imposter was produced to get
the document registered, therefore, F.I.R. was lodged, but
then nothing was shown to substantiate the submission about
lodging of F.I.R., so much so that even copy of the F.I.R.
was also not produced. Thus, considering this, and other
attending circumstances this issue no. 2 was decided in
favour of the plaintiff. Likewise, considering material on
record issue no.1 was also decided in favour of the
plaintiff, holding the plaintiff to be Khatedar. It is
significant to note, that this judgment was appealed
against, which appeal was dismissed, and then was not
challenged any further. Thus, the judgment acquired
finality.
On the face of this the submission made by the
3
learned counsel for the petitioner, that Kamla Devi had not
produced the original sale deed, whether in the present
suit, or in the previous suit, with the result, that it
cannot be said that the sale in favour of Kamla Devi is
proved, cannot be entertained in the review petition.
As noticed above, the certified copy of the
registered sale deed was produced, and no objection was
raised about production thereof.
No other submission was made.
Consequently, we do not find any force in the
review petition. The same is, therefore, dismissed.
( H.R.PANWAR ),J. ( N P GUPTA ),J. /Sushil/