Headnotes
The petitioner's revenue suit seeking correction of entries and declaration of tenancy rights was decreed by the Assistant Collector. Two appeals against that decree were filed before the Revenue Appellate Authority (RAA): one was allowed and the other partly allowed, with that portion remanded for a fresh decision. On a second appeal before the Board of Revenue, the Board not only set aside the RAA's remand order but went on to dismiss the plaintiff's original suit itself. The Rajasthan High Court held this improper: once a remand order is set aside, the correct course is to send the matter back to the appellate authority for fresh consideration, not to dismiss the suit outright, since that would deprive the plaintiff of the remedy of a first appeal.
Key Takeaways
- Setting aside a remand order does not, by itself, permit an appellate or revisional forum to go further and dismiss the underlying suit — the correct course is to remand the matter back for a fresh decision on appeal.
- Doing otherwise deprives a litigant of the statutory remedy of a first appeal, which the Rajasthan High Court treated as a distinct and independently protected entitlement.
- When remanding, courts can direct that the fresh hearing proceed on a fixed timeline and without unnecessary adjournments to either side.
Full Judgment Text
The Rajasthan High Court has set aside an order of the Board of Revenue that, while quashing a remand order passed by the Revenue Appellate Authority, went on to dismiss the plaintiff's underlying revenue suit altogether.
FACTS:
The petitioner had filed a revenue suit seeking correction of revenue entries and a declaration of tenancy rights, which was decreed in her favour by the Court of the Assistant Collector. Two separate appeals were filed by the respondents before the Revenue Appellate Authority (RAA). The RAA allowed one appeal and partly allowed the second, remanding that portion for a fresh decision. One of the respondents then filed a second appeal before the Board of Revenue, which set aside the RAA's remand order — but did not stop there, going on to dismiss the plaintiff's original suit in its entirety.
COURT'S ANALYSIS:
Justice Anoop Kumar Dhand held that once a remand order is found to be improper and is set aside, the correct remedy is to send the matter back to the appellate authority to decide the appeal afresh — not to dismiss the plaintiff's suit itself. Relying on the Supreme Court's decision in P.E. Prasannakumari & Others v. T.K. Ambujakshi, the Court held that "the suit submitted by the plaintiff cannot be rejected" in such circumstances, and that doing so would "deprive the appellant from availing the remedy of first appeal."
HOLDING:
The Board of Revenue's order was set aside, and the matter was remanded to the Revenue Appellate Authority to decide the appeal afresh on its merits, preferably within two months, without entertaining unnecessary adjournment requests from either side.
Source: LiveLaw, "Dismissal Of Revenue Suit While Quashing Remand Order Deprives Plaintiff Of Remedy Of Appeal: Rajasthan High Court," September 10, 2026.
FACTS:
The petitioner had filed a revenue suit seeking correction of revenue entries and a declaration of tenancy rights, which was decreed in her favour by the Court of the Assistant Collector. Two separate appeals were filed by the respondents before the Revenue Appellate Authority (RAA). The RAA allowed one appeal and partly allowed the second, remanding that portion for a fresh decision. One of the respondents then filed a second appeal before the Board of Revenue, which set aside the RAA's remand order — but did not stop there, going on to dismiss the plaintiff's original suit in its entirety.
COURT'S ANALYSIS:
Justice Anoop Kumar Dhand held that once a remand order is found to be improper and is set aside, the correct remedy is to send the matter back to the appellate authority to decide the appeal afresh — not to dismiss the plaintiff's suit itself. Relying on the Supreme Court's decision in P.E. Prasannakumari & Others v. T.K. Ambujakshi, the Court held that "the suit submitted by the plaintiff cannot be rejected" in such circumstances, and that doing so would "deprive the appellant from availing the remedy of first appeal."
HOLDING:
The Board of Revenue's order was set aside, and the matter was remanded to the Revenue Appellate Authority to decide the appeal afresh on its merits, preferably within two months, without entertaining unnecessary adjournment requests from either side.
Source: LiveLaw, "Dismissal Of Revenue Suit While Quashing Remand Order Deprives Plaintiff Of Remedy Of Appeal: Rajasthan High Court," September 10, 2026.
Cases Cited & References
- 1. 2026 LiveLaw (Raj) 370