Rajasthan High Court
Bholaram Son Of Ganpat vs Sitaram on 2 August, 2021
Bench: Sanjeev Prakash Sharma
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
(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
(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
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
