HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN
BENCH AT JAIPUR
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 3022/2021
1. Bholaram Son Of Ganpat, Aged About 82 Years, Resident
Of Village Badarna Tehsil Amer, District Jaipur.
2. Nathulal Son Of Ganpat, Aged About 75 Years, Resident
Of Village Badarna Tehsil Amer, District Jaipur.
3. Babulal Son Of Ganpat, Aged About 72 Years, Resident Of
Village Badarna Tehsil Amer, District Jaipur.
----Petitioners
Versus
1. Sitaram, Son Of Prabhati Devi And Ramsahay
2. Rampal, Son Of Prabhati Devi And Ramsahay
3. Ramgopal, Son Of Prabhati Devi And Ramsahay
4. Kailash, Son Of Prabhati Devi And Ramsahay
5. State Of Rajasthan, Through Tehsildar Amer, District
Jaipur.
6. Sub Registrar, Amer, District Jaipur.
7. Birda Son Of Prabhat, Aged About 57 Years, Resident Of
Village Badarna, Tehsil Amer, District Jaipur.
8. Kana Son Of Prabhat, Aged About 40 Years, Resident Of
Village Badarna, Tehsil Amer, District Jaipur.
9. Jagdish Son Of Prabhat, Aged About 60 Years, Resident Of
Village Badarna, Tehsil Amer, District Jaipur.
10. Laxmi Nagar Grah Nirman Sahkari Samiti Ltd., Jaipur
Through Minister Surendra Prasad Sharma Son Of Prabhu
Dayal Sharma, Office Address- Hanuman Tower, Gangauri
Bazar, Brhmpuri Khura, Jaipur.
11. Rampyari D/o Late Prabhati Devi W/o Narayan Mehta, R/o
Village Morija, Tehsil Chomu, District Jaipur.
12. Dhapa Devi D/o Late Prabhati Devi W/o Chitarmal, R/o
Village Bhanpur Kalan, Tehsil Jamwaramgarh, District
Jaipur.
----Respondents
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. R K Gouttam
For Respondent(s) : Mr. Abhishek Pareek
(Downloaded on 03/08/2021 at 10:31:20 PM)
(2 of 3) [CW-3022/2021]
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJEEV PRAKASH SHARMA Judgment / Order 02/08/2021 The petitioners by way of this writ petition assail the order dated 12.01.2021 passed by the Board of Revenue whereby the revision petition preferred by the respondents was allowed and while reversing the order passed by the SDO court dated 13.09.2019, allowed the application moved under Order 22 Rule 3 & 9 CPC.
Learned counsel submits that the application moved under Order 22 Rule 3 & 9 CPC was belated by ten days and an application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act had not been moved and therefore, the learned SDO had committed an error in allowing the application for taking LRs of deceased-plaintiff on record.
Learned counsel further submits that no specific reasons have been mentioned in the application moved by the LRs of having filed the application belatedly. Learned counsel further submits that the Revenue Court has also erred in not considering the aspect while rejecting the revision filed by the petitioners.
Learned counsel appearing for the caveator-respondents submits that in the application itself reasons were mentioned and the delay was only of ten days which could be condoned by the court orally too.
I have considered the submissions.
The power exercised by this Court while examining the order passed by Revenue Court is limited. If there can be two opinions, the opinion already taken up by the Revenue Court would not be interfered with by this Court in writ jurisdiction merely because (Downloaded on 03/08/2021 at 10:31:20 PM) (3 of 3) [CW-3022/2021] there can be a different approach also in dealing with matters relating to taking LRs on record.
In the opinion of this Court, the revenue courts are to follow CPC however, strict rules of pleading may not be that as required in civil courts.
Taking into consideration that the application for taking LRs on record was only ten days belated, this Court does not find any reason to interfere with the orders passed by the SDO as well as by Revenue Court.
The writ petition is devoid of merits and the same is accordingly dismissed.
(SANJEEV PRAKASH SHARMA),J SAURABH YADAV /670/2 (Downloaded on 03/08/2021 at 10:31:20 PM) Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)