Rajasthan High Court – Jaipur
Ramsahay Son Of Shri Shrawan vs Smt. Shyopyari Devi D/O Shri … on 23 April, 2026
[2026:RJ-JP:17299-DB]
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN
BENCH AT JAIPUR
D.B. Civil Special Appeal (Writ) No. 39/2024
1. Ramsahay Son Of Shri Shrawan, (Since Deceased)
Through Legal Heirs.
1/1. Hanuman Sahay Son Of Late Shri Ramsahay, Aged About
59 Years, Village Bilawa, Bujurg, Tehsil Sanganer, District
Jaipur (Rajasthan.)
1/2. Kailash Alias Kalu Son Of Late Shri Ramsahay, R/o Village
Bilwa, Bujurg, Tehsil Sanganer, District Jaipur (Rajasthan)
1/3. Mukesh Son Of Late Shri Ramsahay, Aged About 38
Years, R/o Village Bilawa Bujurg, Tehsil Sanganer,
1/4. Kaushal Devi D/o Late Shri Ramsahay, Aged About 46
Years, R/o Kaota, Tehsil Bassi, District Jaipur (Rajasthan.)
1/5. Raju D/o Late Shri Ramsahay, Aged About 41 Years, R/o
Kanota, Tehsil Bassi, District Jaipur (Rajasthan)
1/6. Nanchi D/o Late Shri Ramsahay, R/o Aradhpanpura,
Ajmer Road, Tehsil Sanganer, District Jaipur.
1/7. Shanti D/o Late Shri Ramsahay, Aged About 36 Years, R/o
Kuthada, Tehsil Bassi, District Jaipur (Rajasthan.)
2. Sohan Son Of Shri Shrawan, (Since Deceased), Through
Legal Heirs.
2/1. Smt. Kailashi Devi Wife Of Late Shri Sohan, Resident Of
Village Beelwa Kalan Tehsil Sanganer, District Jaipur
(Rajasthan)
2/2. Sitaram Son Of Late Shri Sohan, Resident Of Village
Beelwa Kalan Tehsil Sanganer, District Jaipur (Rajasthan)
2/3. Babu Lal Son Of Late Shri Sohan, Resident Of Village
Beelwa Kalan Tehsil Sanganer, District Jaipur (Rajasthan)
2/4. Sumitra Daughter Of Late Shri Sohan Wife Of Gopal,
Resident Of Garh, Tehsil Bassi, District Jaipur (Rajasthan)
----Appellants
Versus
1. Smt. Shyopyari Devi D/o Shri Narayanlal, W/o Late Shri
Sanwalram, R/o Village Jaisinghpura, Buhariya Tehsil
Sanganer. District Jaipur Through Power Of Attorney
Holder Banshilal Son Of Shri Sanwalram R/o Jaisinghpura,
Buhariya Tehsil Sanganer, District Jaipur.
(Uploaded on 30/04/2026 at 01:56:49 PM)
(Downloaded on 30/04/2026 at 10:57:12 PM)
[2026:RJ-JP:17299-DB] (2 of 5) [SAW-39/2024]
2. Money Time Trend Fin Private Limited, Through Director
Shikhar Chand Jain Son Of Shri Kanhiyalal Jain, R/o Plot
No. C-8, Devnagar Tonk Road, Jaipur And Rakesh Kumar
Jain Son Of Shri Narendra Kumar Jain, R/o Plot No. Bb-
17-A, Jai Ambey Nagar, Tonk Road, Jaipur (Rajasthan.)
3. State Of Rajasthan, Through Its Tehsildar, Sanganer,
Jaipur.
4. Smt Mulidevi W/o Shri Jagdish, (Since Deceased)
4/1. Lal Ram Son Of Late Smt. Muli Devi, Aged About 43
Years, Resident Of Village Bilawa Bujurg, Tehsil Sanganer,
District Jaipur (Rajasthan)
4/2. Chander Prakash Son Of Late Smt. Muli Devi, Aged About
41 Years, Resident Of Village Bilawa Bujurg, Tehsil
Sanganer, District Jaipur (Rajasthan)
4/3. Rajesh Son Of Late Smt. Muli Devi, Aged About 39 Years,
Resident Of Village Bilawa Bujurg, Tehsil Sanganer,
District Jaipur (Rajasthan)
4/4. Rameshwari Daughter Of Late Smt. Muli Devi Wife Of
Radhey Shyam, Aged About 45 Years, Resident Of Village
Raipuriya Burj, Tehsil Chaksu, District Jaipur (Rajasthan)
5. Smt Laxma Devi W/o Shri Ramratan, R/o Village Bilawa
Bujurg, Tehsil Sanganer, District Jaipur (Rajasthan)
6. Smt Parvati Devi W/o Shri Shankar Lal, R/o Village Bilawa
Bujurg, Tehsil Sanganer, District Jaipur (Rajasthan)
7. Smt Laxma Devi W/o Shri Chauthu (Deceased), R/o
Village Bilawa Bujurg, Tehsil Sanganer, District Jaipur
(Rajasthan)
8. Jagdish Son Of Shri Chauthu, R/o Village Bilawa Bujurg,
Tehsil Sanganer, District Jaipur (Rajasthan)
9. Shankar Son Of Late Shri Ram Ratan, R/o Village Bilawa
Bujurg, Tehsil Sanganer, District Jaipur (Rajasthan)
(Uploaded on 30/04/2026 at 01:56:49 PM)
(Downloaded on 30/04/2026 at 10:57:12 PM)
[2026:RJ-JP:17299-DB] (3 of 5) [SAW-39/2024]
10. Suraj Son Of Late Shri Ram Ratan, R/o Village Bilawa
Bujurg, Tehsil Sanganer, District Jaipur (Rajasthan)
11. Vishnu Son Of Late Shri Ram Ratan, R/o Village Bilawa
Bujurg, Tehsil Sanganer, District Jaipur (Rajasthan)
12. Smt Prem Devi D/o Shri Chauthu W/o Shri Ghanshyam,
R/o Village Rampura Chaksu, Tehsil Chaksu, District
Jaipur (Rajasthan)
13. Smt Sita Devi D/o Ramratan W/o Shri Mahesh, R/o
Ramratanpura, Post Kanota, Tehsil Bassi, District Jaipur.
14. Smt Sheela D/o Ramratan W/o Shri Ramavtar, R/o Village
Mahaltilawala, Tehsil Sanganer, District Jaipur.
----Respondents
For Appellant(s) : Mr. R.K. Mathur, Senior Advocate
assisted by Mr. Lucky Sharma &
Mr. Aayush Goyal
For Respondent(s) : Mr. Saurabh Bhandari
HON’BLE THE ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE MR. SANJEEV PRAKASH SHARMA
HON’BLE MRS. JUSTICE SHUBHA MEHTA
Order
REPORTABLE
23/04/2026
1. Heard.
2. The challenge before the learned Single Judge by the
appellants was to the order passed by the Board of Revenue dated
15.12.2022, whereby while deciding the second appeal preferred
by the respondents, the Board of Revenue relied upon the
provisions of Order 41 Rule 31 CPC and remanded the case back
to the Revenue Appellate Authority (RAA) to decide the appeal
afresh by deciding all the issues on the basis of evidence on the
ground that it had not followed the mandatory provisions of Order
41 Rule 31 CPC and had not formulated the points of
determination.
(Uploaded on 30/04/2026 at 01:56:49 PM)
(Downloaded on 30/04/2026 at 10:57:12 PM)
[2026:RJ-JP:17299-DB] (4 of 5) [SAW-39/2024]
3. The learned Single Judge upheld the order passed by the
Board of Revenue on the premise that appeal is in continuation of
the proceedings of the original Court. While the provisions of CPC
are relevant for the purpose of adjudication of revenue disputes,
which are taken up by the Revenue Courts, which are not in the
ordinary sense, ‘courts’ within the definition of CPC.
4. Time and again, we have held that Revenue Courts are not
required to decide revenue disputes strictly by following the
procedures and judgment can be given more so, as they are not
‘Courts’ within the meaning of CPC. Hence, there was no occasion
for the Board of Revenue to remand the case back merely because
the separate issues and points for determination had not been
mentioned by the RAA while deciding the first appeal. Even the
Apex Court in the case of Arvind Kumar Jaiswal (D) Thr. LR.
Vs. Devendra Prasad Jaiswal Varun [SLP (C)
No.9172/2020], has taken a view with regard to the powers of
the High Court, as First Appellate Court, in relation to the remand,
observing as under:
“In the present case, the High Court, as the first appellate
court, which is also a court of fact and law, has passed an
order of remand observing that the judgment of the trial
court was, in its opinion, not written as per the mandate of
Section 33 and Rule 4(2) and 5 of Order XX of the Code, as
the discussion and reasoning on certain aspects was not
detailed and elaborate.
This is not a case where the evidence is not adduced and
on record. In fact, the first portion of the judgment of the
High Court elaborately records the contention of the parties
and the facts and evidence relied by the parties.
In view of the aforesaid, we allow the present appeal, and
set aside the impugned judgment and restore the first
appeal to its original number before the High Court, to be
decided on merits and in accordance with law, as per the
provision of order XLI of the Code. As the appeal has been
pending for a considerable time, the High court would
decide the appeal expeditiously as possible.”
(Uploaded on 30/04/2026 at 01:56:49 PM)
(Downloaded on 30/04/2026 at 10:57:12 PM)
[2026:RJ-JP:17299-DB] (5 of 5) [SAW-39/2024]
5. We are of the further view that the powers were fully
available to the Board of Revenue to decide the case while
deciding the second appeal, as it would not be strictly governed by
Section 100 of the CPC and could have gone into all the aspects
and evidence, which were recorded.
6. We, therefore, do not concur with the view taken by the
learned Single Judge and set aside the impugned judgment dated
06.12.2023. Accordingly, we also set aside the judgment passed
by the Board of Revenue dated 15.12.2022 and direct that the
second appeal preferred before it under Section 224 of the
Rajasthan Tenancy Act, 1955 shall be revived and decided on
merits, as early as possible, preferably within a period of six
months.
7. With the said observations, the present appeal is allowed.
Pending application(s), if any, shall also stand disposed of.
(SHUBHA MEHTA),J (SANJEEV PRAKASH SHARMA),ACTING CJ
N.GANDHI/RAJAT/111
(Uploaded on 30/04/2026 at 01:56:49 PM)
(Downloaded on 30/04/2026 at 10:57:12 PM)
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
