Safiya Malik

The High Court of Rajasthan Single Bench of Justice Anoop Kumar Dhand held that the orders of the Sub Divisional Officer (SDO), Mahwa, and subsequent affirmations by Revenue Appellate Authority and Board of Revenue are legally unsustainable and quashed them, directing the trial court to conduct a fresh trial. Specifically, the High Court observed procedural errors, including failure to frame issues and record evidence, and directed compliance with Order XIV CPC.

A writ petition was filed by Umakant Sharma challenging the order passed by the SDO, Mahwa, District Dausa, Rajasthan, which had decreed a suit for partition and permanent injunction filed by Om Prakash Sharma without following the procedural mandate of framing issues and recording evidence. The petitioner, Umakant Sharma (defendant in the suit), contended that the suit, which was contested by filing a written statement, was decided summarily without adhering to the procedures laid down under Order XIV of the Civil Procedure Code (CPC).

Also Read: Restoration Cannot Supersede Public Welfare Where Reversal Imposes Greater Ecological Harm | Supreme Court Quashes High Court Demolition Order | Preserves Recreational Park In Public Interest

The plaintiff, Om Prakash Sharma, filed the original suit seeking partition and permanent injunction against multiple defendants, including the petitioner. In response, only the petitioner contested the suit and filed a written statement categorically denying the plaintiff’s claims. The remaining defendants did not file any written statements, resulting in the court closing their opportunity to do so on the very same day.

Subsequently, without framing issues and without recording evidence, the Sub Divisional Officer passed the impugned order dated 02.07.2021, decreeing the suit in favor of Om Prakash Sharma. The petitioner then challenged this decree through appeals before the Revenue Appellate Authority and the Board of Revenue, both of which summarily dismissed his appeals without examining procedural irregularities, as alleged.

The petitioner’s counsel argued that it is mandatory under Order XIV CPC to frame issues whenever pleadings between parties are disputed. It was asserted that a contested suit must be decided only after framing specific issues based on pleadings, followed by evidence recording and a decision rendered on those issues.

The respondent’s counsel, however, defended the actions of the lower courts, claiming that since the property in dispute was recorded solely in the plaintiff’s name in revenue records, no further evidence or framing of issues was required. It was argued that the SDO and appellate courts correctly appreciated these facts and thus properly decreed the suit summarily.

Justice Anoop Kumar Dhand observed significant procedural lapses by the lower courts. It was recorded that "the instant case is a classic and glaring textbook example of obstination exhibited by the Revenue Courts, who often overlook and bypass the procedure laid down for deciding the suit." The Court noted that procedural mandates, especially those under Order XIV CPC, require explicit adherence, and a contested suit must not be decided summarily.

The Court explained the importance of framing issues clearly, observing: "Issues arise when a material proposition of fact or law is affirmed by one party and denied by the other."

It was further stated that: "Each material proposition affirmed by one party and denied by the other shall form the subject of distinct issue," and stated the court's mandatory obligation to frame issues. The Bench categorically stated that failure to frame issues, despite existing material controversies, constitutes: "highest form of judicial impropriety, if not contempt of a legal mandate."

Noting that the petitioner had specifically contested several material facts—title, possession, and identity of the disputed property—the Court underlined the necessity of framing issues, including:

• Whether the plaintiff proves the correctness of the plaint schedule.

• Whether the plaintiff proves his title to the property.

• Whether the defendant proves his title and possession of the property.

• Whether the suit itself was maintainable and entitled the plaintiff to the relief claimed.

Justice Dhand further held the lower appellate courts' failure, expressing concern that these appellate courts also overlooked such grave procedural lapses and summarily dismissed the appeals, describing their oversight as "shocking and surprising."

The High Court observed further procedural ignorance, noting that presiding officers in revenue courts often lack adequate legal training or understanding of basic legal procedures. It emphasized that such officers, typically from administrative services, often adjudicate cases without knowledge of procedural laws like CPC and the Indian Evidence Act. This lack of training leads to repeated procedural errors in revenue courts, significantly affecting justice delivery.

The court strongly advocated for establishing an Administrative Judicial Academy to impart mandatory training to revenue officers. Justice Dhand stated: "The need to impart training to such Officers, both ‘pre-service’ and ‘in-service’, has been felt for a long time and has been neglected by the Government of Rajasthan so far."

He proposed structured training covering practical procedures of trial conduct, including framing issues, recording evidence, and judgment drafting. The court outlined specific recommendations to enhance judicial capacity among administrative officers, ensuring procedural compliance and enhancing judicial efficiency.

Also Read: Manipur High Court Modifies Interim Orders | Permits Road Construction While Protecting Petitioners' Possession Rights

Justice Anoop Kumar Dhand directed:

• The writ petition is allowed; the impugned orders of the SDO, Revenue Appellate Authority, and Board of Revenue are quashed.

• The matter is remitted to the Sub Divisional Officer, Mahwa, District Dausa, for fresh adjudication.

• The trial court must strictly comply with Order XIV CPC, frame issues, record evidence from both sides, and decide the suit on merits within 18 months.

• Parties must appear before the SDO on 08.07.2025.

Further, the Court directed the State Government explicitly to:

• Establish an Administrative Judicial Academy for mandatory training of administrative officers posted in revenue courts.

• Conduct research on judicial reforms and organize judicial innovation programs.

• Develop a comprehensive curriculum integrating theoretical knowledge and practical procedural training.

• Sensitize officers to expedite disposal of cases without unnecessary adjournments.

The Chief Secretary, Principal Secretary (Revenue), and Principal Law Secretary were directed to ensure compliance with these instructions and report steps taken by the next date of hearing, listed for 01.09.2025.

Advocates Representing the Parties:

For the Petitioner: Mr. Hari Krishna Sharma
For the Respondents: Mr. Devendra Kumar Sharma

Case Title: Umakant Sharma v Om Prakash Sharma  & Others

Case Number: S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 840/2024

Bench: Justice Anoop Kumar Dhand

[Read/Download order]