'Gross Abuse Of Law': Rajasthan High Court Sets Aside Revenue Board's Order Directing Impleadment Of Party In Absence Of Prayer
Rajasthan High Court expressed astonishment over the ex-parte order passed by the Board of Revenue, directing trial court to implead the concerned party without there being any prayer for the same terming it “gross abuse of the process of law” and “violative of judicial propriety”.
While setting aside and remanding the order to the Board of Revenue, the bench of Justice Sanjeet Purohit, without commenting anything on the modus operandi of the concerned bench, directed the Chairman, Board of Revenue, Ajmer, to assign the matter to some other bench.
"This Court is of considered opinion that a grave error of law has been committed by learned Board of Revenue while passing impugned order. The manner in which impugned order has been passed, whereby revision petition has been allowed at the admission stage and an order is set aside without issuing notice to opposite / affected party, without granting any opportunity of hearing that too, in a revision petition filed by a person who is not a party to proceedings and without first deciding application for condonation of delay, is against settled and basic tenates of law. It is also quite astonishing to note that order impugned has been passed beyond the prayer made in revision petition and straightaway directions were issued to learned Trial Court to implead Respondent No. 1 as party respondent despite there being no such impleadment application pending before learned Trial Court. This Court is of considered opinion that order impugned amounts to a gross abuse of process of law".
For context, the petitioner had filed a suit seeking declaration of khatedari rights, permanent injunction, and temporary injunction, in which the respondent no. 1 was not impleaded as a party. Neither any application was filed by respondent no. 1 to be impleaded as a party.
In this matter, interim relief was granted in favour of the petitioner, directing the parties to maintain status quo regarding the suit property.
Subsequently, respondent no. 1 filed a revision petition before the Board of Revenue, which was decided ex-parte without issuing notice to the petitioner. Moreover, interim directions were issued to the trial court for impleading the respondent no. 1 as a party without there being any prayer to this effect.
Hence, the present petition was filed before the Court challenging the order by the Board of Revenue.
The petitioner further argued that the revision petition was barred by limitation and in this relation an application for condonation of delay was filed along with the revision petition. However, the revision petition was directly considered on its merits by the Board of Revenue without adjudicating the application for condonation of delay.
After hearing the contentions, the Court opined that the Board of Revenue had committed grave error of law while passing the order, which was against the basic tenets of law.
“It is also quite astonishing to note that order impugned has been passed beyond the prayer made in revision petition and straightaway directions were issued to learned Trial Court to implead Respondent No. 1 as party respondent despite there being no such impleadment application pending before learned Trial Court. This Court is of considered opinion that order impugned amounts to a gross abuse of process of law.”
Terming the order as absolutely erroneous and violative of judicial propriety, it was held to be unsustainable in law, and set aside, remanding the matter to Board of Revenue.
The Court further directed the Chairman to assign the matter to some other bench.
Title: Virendra Singh v Bhupendra Singh & Ors.
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Raj) 238