Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur

Laxmilal vs Daulatram (2025:Rj-Jd:39825) on 8 September, 2025

Author: Kuldeep Mathur

Bench: Kuldeep Mathur

[2025:RJ-JD:39825]

      HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
                       JODHPUR
                S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 14997/2025

Laxmilal S/o Sh. Manaji Dangi, Aged About 70 Years, Resident Of
Ayad, Tehsil Girwa, District Udaipur, Rajasthan.
                                                                      ----Petitioner
                                      Versus
1.       Daulatram S/o Sh. Unkar Mali, Resident Of Ayad, Tehsil
         Girwa, District Udaipur, Rajasthan.
2.       Khumani      W/o       Purshottam          Mali,      Resident   Of   New
         Bhopalpura, District Udaipur, Rajasthan.
3.       Dalchand     S/o       Sh.   Ambalal        Mali,     Resident   Of   New
         Bhopalpura, District Udaipur, Rajasthan.
4.       Narayan      S/o    Sh.      Ambalal        Mali,     Resident   Of   New
         Bhopalpura, District Udaipur, Rajasthan.
5.       Vidya W/o Inderlal D/o Lt. Ambalal, Resident Of Kalaji
         Goraji, District Udaipur, Rajasthan.
6.       Narayan S/o Manaji Dangi, Resident Of Ayad, Tehsil
         Girwa, District Udaipur (Raj.) (Since Deceased)
7.       Bherulal S/o Rama Dangi, Resident Of Shobaghpura,
         Tehsil Girwa, District Udaipur, Rajasthan.
8.       Pushpa Devi D/o Rama Dangi, Resident Of Shobaghpura,
         Tehsil Girwa, District Udaipur, Rajasthan.
9.       Noji Bai W/o Rama Dangi, Resident Of Shobaghpura,
         Tehsil Girwa, District Udaipur, Rajasthan.
                                                                   ----Respondents


For Petitioner(s)           :     Mr. Muktesh Maheshwari
For Respondent(s)           :     Mr. Rajat Dave



            HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE KULDEEP MATHUR

Order

08/09/2025

1. By way of filing the present writ petition under Article 226 of

the Constitution of India, the petitioner has prayed for the

following reliefs:-

(Uploaded on 10/09/2025 at 05:16:41 PM)

[2025:RJ-JD:39825] (2 of 5) [CW-14997/2025]

"It is, therefore, most respectfully prayed on behalf of the Petitioner that this Writ Petition may kindly be allowed and by an appropriate writ order or direction:

I. The impugned judgment dated 02.07.2025 (Annex.12) passed by the Learned Board of Revenue, Ajmer in Revision No. /Τ.Α./5887/2019/Udaipur titled as "Laxmilal Vs Daulat Ram & Ors." may kindly be quashed and set aside; II. The Revision preferred by the petitioner i.e. Revision No. /Τ.Α./5887/2019/Udaipur titled as "Laxmilal Vs Daulat Ram & Ors." (Annex.10) may kindly be allowed in toto; III. Consequently, the impugned order dated 12.09.2019 (Annex.9) passed by the Learned Assistant Collector and Sub- Divisional Officer, Girva in Revenue Case no. 02/2019 may kindly be quashed and set aside and the judgment and decree dated 22.07.2000 (Annex.5) passed by the Learned Assistant Collector and Sub-Divisional Officer, Girva may kindly be affirmed.

IV. Any other appropriate order or direction, which this Hon'ble Court considers just and proper in the facts and circumstances of this case, may kindly be passed in favour of the Petitioner."

2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that one

Ambalal who is father of respondents, filed suit against the

present petitioner and others before the learned SDO, Girva under

Section 183 of the Rajasthan Tenancy Act, 1955. The suit filed by

the Ambalal came to be decided ex-parte on 20.11.1995 and a

decree of eviction was passed accordingly.

3. Learned counsel submitted that an application under Order 9

Rule 13 CPC was filed by the petitioner before the Assistant

Collector, Girva however, the same came to be rejected vide order

dated 20.05.1997. Thereupon, petitioner preferred an appeal

before the learned RAA which came to be allowed vide judgment

dated 01.07.1997 and the ex-parte judgment and decree dated

20.11.1995 was set aside and the matter was remanded back to

the Assistant Collector, Girva for hearing the matter afresh.

(Uploaded on 10/09/2025 at 05:16:41 PM)

[2025:RJ-JD:39825] (3 of 5) [CW-14997/2025]

4. Learned counsel submitted that when the matter was heard

afresh, the respondents- original plaintiff(s) failed to appear

before the Court and the Court of Assistant Collector, Girva vide

judgment and decree dated 22.07.2020 dismissed the suit filed by

the respondents- original plaintiff(s). The respondents- original

plaintiff(s) after an inordinate delay of over ten years, preferred

an application under Order 9 Rule 13 of CPC along with an

application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act on the ground

that respondents- original plaintiff(s) were unaware of the

proceedings of the case been remanded back to be decided a fresh

and, therefore, they could not appear before the Court of Assistant

Collector, Girva.

5. The Court of Assistant Collector, Girva after hearing the

parties by an order dated 12.09.2019 was pleased to allow the

application under Order 9 Rule 13 of CPC and application under

Section 5 of the Limitation Act. Consequently, a revision petition

under Section 230 of the Rajasthan Tenancy Act was filed by the

petitioner before the learned Board of Revenue, Ajmer against the

order dated 12.09.2019 which came to be rejected vide order

dated 02.07.2025.

6. Learned counsel submitted that the learned Board of

Revenue and the learned Court of Assistant Collector, Girva in the

impugned orders have failed to consider that no satisfactory

explanation for set asiding the judgment and decree dated

22.07.2000 was given by the respondent to condone the

inordinate and unexplained delay of over ten years. He submitted

that once the matter was remanded by the learned RAA, it was

(Uploaded on 10/09/2025 at 05:16:41 PM)

[2025:RJ-JD:39825] (4 of 5) [CW-14997/2025]

the duty of the respondents to appear and contest the matter

before the Court of Assistant Collector, Girva. Learned counsel

submitted that since the respondents- original plaintiff(s) failed to

show any sufficient cause for condoning an inordinate delay of

over ten years, the ex-parte decree ought not to have been set

aside by the trial Court.

7. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondents supported

the judgments passed by the Court of Assistant Collector, Girva

and learned Board of Revenue.

8. The operative portion of the order dated 12.09.2019 passed

by the Sub Divisional Officer (Assistant Collector), Girva, District

Udaipur reads as under:-

"mHk;i{k fo}ku vf/koDrkvksa cgl ij euu fd;k x;k i=koyh ,oa i=koyh ij miyC/k nLtkostksa dk xgurk ls v/;;u fd;k x;k U;k;ky; ds fu.kZ; o fMØh fnukad 20-11-95 dks izfroknhx.k dk dCtk gVkdj oknhx.k dks fliqnhZ dk vkns"k iznku fd;k x;k] mDr fMØh ds fo:} foi{kh us vkns"k

9 fu;e 13 esa vihy dh xbZ foi{kh dh vihy U;k;ky; Hkw&izcU/k vf/kdkjh ,oa insu jktLo vihy vf/kdkjh mn;iqj ds fu.kZ; fnukad 09-07-1997 }kjk Lohdkj dh tkdj izdj.k izfrizsf'kr fd;k x;k ysfdu i{kdkjksa dks vf/kuLFk U;k;ky; esa lquokbZ fnukad fu;r ugha dh tkus ls izkFkh@oknh dh tkudkjh ds vHkko esa oknh dk okn [kkfjt fd;k tkdj izfroknh dk dkmUVj Dyse Lohdkj dj [kkrsnkjh ds fu.kZ; o fMØh vkns"k fnukad 22-07-2000 dks fn;s x;s mDr fu.kZ; o fMØh ls O;fFkr gksdj izkFkhZ }kjk izk-i- vkns"k 9 fu;e 13 lgifBr /kkjk 151 flizl- ,oa e;kn vf/kfu;e /kkjk 5 dk izkFkZuk i= tkudkjh ds vHkko esa nsjh dk izLrqr fd;k x;kA izkFkhZ dks fu;r vkxkeh lquokbZ frfFk Kkr ugh gksus mDr lquokbZ ds laca/k esa dHkh lwpuk i= lEeu nsdj lwfpr ugha fd;k x;k Fkk] izkFkhZ }kjk izLrqr U;kf;d n`'VkUrksa dk v/;;u Hkh fd;k x;k izkFkhZ }kjk izLrqr U;kf;d n`'VkUr Hkh gLrxr izdj.k esa iw.kZr% ykxw gksrs gS o lkE; j[krs gS] ysfdu izkFkhZ }kjk yEcs le; ds ckn izkFkZuk i= izLrqr fd;k gS izkFkhZ dks 5000@& v{kjs ikWp gtkj :i;s ds vkfFkZd n.M ls Hkh n.Mhr djrs gq;s izkFkhZ dk izkFkZuk i= vkns"k 9 fu;e 13 lgifBr /kkjk 151 flizl- e; e;kn vf/kfu;e /kkjk 5 dk U;k;kfgr esa Lohdkj fd;k tkrk gS fu.kZ; o fMØh fnukad 22-07- 2000 dks fujLr fd;k tkrk gS ewy izdj.k dks iwu% uEcj ij fy;s tkus dk vkns"k fn;k tkrk gSA izkFkhZ vkfFkZd n.M jkf"k 5000@& :i;sa jktdks'k esa tek djk jlhn is"k djsaA fu.kZ; ljsbZtykl lwuk;kA izdj.k QSly "kqekj gksdj uEcj ls de gksA"

9. Upon a perusal of the impugned order dated 12.09.2019

passed by the Sub Divisional Officer (Assistant Collector), Girva,

(Uploaded on 10/09/2025 at 05:16:41 PM)

[2025:RJ-JD:39825] (5 of 5) [CW-14997/2025]

District Udaipur and order dated 02.07.2025 passed by the

learned Board of Revenue, Ajmer, this Court finds that the Sub

Divisional Officer (Assistant Collector), Girva, District Udaipur in its

order has given sufficient reasons to set aside the ex-parte

judgment and decree dated 22.07.2000. The scope available with

this Court to interfere with the impugned orders is very limited.

The order passed by the Revenue Court on an application filed

under Order 9 Rule 13 of CPC and Section 5 of the Limitation Act

can be interfered by this Court only when the Revenue Court has

acted beyond its jurisdiction or has committed a pulpable error or

material irregularity in exercise of its jurisdiction but since the

impugned orders have been passed after due examination of the

material placed before the Courts and only upon finding that the

delay in filing application under Order 9 Rule 13 of CPC has been

well explained, no case for interference by this Court in the

impugned judgments/ orders is made out.

10. However, it is made clear that the petitioner shall be at

liberty to raise all just and legal objections before the competent

revenue Court during trial.