Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur
Girdawari vs Banwari (2025:Rj-Jd:41941) on 19 September, 2025
Author: Kuldeep Mathur
Bench: Kuldeep Mathur
[2025:RJ-JD:41941]
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
JODHPUR
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 17406/2025
1. Girdawari S/o Late Sukhram, Aged About 66 Years,
Resident Of Ward No. 6, Sardarpura Bika, Tehsil
Suratgarh, District Sri Ganganagar (Raj.).
2. Hansraj S/o Late Sukhram, Aged About 43 Years,
Resident Of Ward No. 6, Sardarpura Bika, Tehsil
Suratgarh, District Sri Ganganagar (Raj.).
3. Chamela D/o Late Sukhram, Aged About 49 Years,
Resident Of Ward No. 6, Sardarpura Bika, Tehsil
Suratgarh, District Sri Ganganagar (Raj.).
4. Sulochana D/o Late Sukhram, Aged About 47 Years,
Resident Of Ward No. 8, Sardarpura Bika, Tehsil
Suratgarh, District Sri Ganganagar (Raj.).
5. Suman D/o Late Sukhram, Aged About 33 Years, Resident
Of Ward No. 6, Sardarpura Bika, Tehsil Suratgarh, District
Sri Ganganagar (Raj.).
----Petitioners
Versus
1. Banwari S/o Shri Mukhram, Resident Of Sakin Sardarpura
Bika, Tehsil Suratgarh, District Sri Ganganagar (Raj.).
2. Devilal S/o Shri Mukhram, Resident Of Sakin, Sardarpura
Bika, Tehsil Suratgarh, District Sri Ganganagar (Raj.).
3. Dalip Kumar S/o Shri Mukhram, Resident Of Sakin,
Sardarpura Bika, Tehsil Suratgarh, District Sri
Ganganagar (Raj.).
4. Jagdish Chandra S/o Shri Mukhram, Resident Of Sakin,
Sardarpura Bika, Tehsil Suratgarh, District Sri
Ganganagar (Raj.).
5. Kashiram S/o Shri Mukhram, Resident Of Sakin,
Sardarpura Bika, Tehsil Suratgarh, District Sri
Ganganagar (Raj.).
6. Chawali D/o Shri Mukhram, Resident Of Sakin,
Sardarpura Bika, Tehsil Suratgarh, District Sri
Ganganagar (Raj.).
7. Savitri D/o Shri Mukhram, Resident Of Sakin, Sardarpura
Bika, Tehsil Suratgarh, District Sri Ganganagar (Raj.).
8. Silochana D/o Shri Mukhram, Resident Of Sakin,
(Uploaded on 20/09/2025 at 01:38:47 PM)
(Downloaded on 23/09/2025 at 09:51:52 PM)
[2025:RJ-JD:41941] (2 of 7) [CW-17406/2025]
Sardarpura Bika, Tehsil Suratgarh, District Sri
Ganganagar (Raj.).
9. Saraswati D/o Shri Lekh Ram, Resident Of Sakin,
Sardarpura Bika, Tehsil Suratgarh, District Sri
Ganganagar (Raj.).
10. Chanda D/o Shri Lekh Ram, Resident Of Sakin,
Sardarpura Bika, Tehsil Suratgarh, District Sri
Ganganagar (Raj.).
11. Savitri D/o Shri Lekh Ram, Resident Of Sakin, Sardarpura
Bika, Tehsil Suratgarh, District Sri Ganganagar (Raj.).
12. Bimla D/o Shri Lekh Ram, Resident Of Sakin, Sardarpura
Bika, Tehsil Suratgarh, District Sri Ganganagar (Raj.).
13. Sulochana D/o Shri Lekh Ram, Resident Of Sakin,
Sardarpura Bika, Tehsil Suratgarh, District Sri
Ganganagar (Raj.).
14. Musmat Rami W/o Shri Lekh Ram, Resident Of Sakin,
Sardarpura Bika, Tehsil Suratgarh, District Sri
Ganganagar (Raj.).
15. Nanu Devi W/o Shri Shriram, Resident Of Sakin,
Sardarpura Bika, Tehsil Suratgarh, District Sri
Ganganagar (Raj.).
16. Indraj S/o Shri Shriram, Resident Of Sakin, Sardarpura
Bika, Tehsil Suratgarh, District Sri Ganganagar (Raj.).
17. Meera D/o Shri Shriram, Resident Of Sakin, Sardarpura
Bika, Tehsil Suratgarh, District Sri Ganganagar (Raj.).
18. Prithviraj S/o (Wrongly Mentioned As Daughter Of) S/o
Shri Shriram, Resident Of Sakin, Sardarpura Bika, Tehsil
Suratgarh, District Sri Ganganagar (Raj.).
19. Tarachand S/o Shri Lekh Ram, Resident Of Sakin,
Sardarpura Bika, Tehsil Suratgarh, District Sri
Ganganagar (Raj.).
20. State Of Rajasthan, Through Tehsildar, Revenue
Suratgarh.
----Respondents
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Devesh A. Purohit
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE KULDEEP MATHUR
(Uploaded on 20/09/2025 at 01:38:47 PM)
[2025:RJ-JD:41941] (3 of 7) [CW-17406/2025]
Order
19/09/2025
1. By way of filing the present writ petition under Article 226 of
the Constitution of India, the petitioners have prayed for the
following reliefs:-
"It is, therefore, most respectfully and humble prayed
that the writ petition may kindly be allowed and;
i. By an appropriate writ, order or direction the impugned
order dated 07.04.2025 (Annex-8) as well as order dated
27.05.2025 (Annex-10) issued by the Respondent may
kindly be quashed and set aside.
ii. Further during pendency of petition, appeal before the
learned Revenue Appellate Authority in case no. 8m/2023
(Girdawari & Ors. vs Mukhram & Ors.) under order 41 rule
19 CPC may kindly be restored to its original position and
the same shall be decided finally on merits.
iii. 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 petitioners.
iv. Costs of the writ petition may kindly be awarded to the
petitioners."
2. Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the
revenue suit filed by one Mukhram under Sections 88 and 188 of
the Rajasthan Tenancy Act, 1955 (hereinafter referred to as 'Act
of 1955') against Lekhram father of Sukhram, Shriram,
Tarachand, Sarbatti, Chanda, Savitri, Vimla, Sulochna and Rami
came to be allowed and decreed on 25.03.2013 by the learned
Sub Divisional Officer, Suratgarh, District Sri Ganganagar
(hereinafter referred to as 'learned SDO').
3. Learned counsel submitted that against the judgment and
decree dated 25.03.2013, Shriram, Sukhram and Tarachand sons
of Lekhram filed an appeal before the learned Revenue Appellate
Authority, Sri Ganganagar (hereinafter referred to as 'learned
(Uploaded on 20/09/2025 at 01:38:47 PM)
[2025:RJ-JD:41941] (4 of 7) [CW-17406/2025]
RAA') being Appeal No.52/2013 titled as "Shriram & Ors. vs.
Mukhram & Ors.". He submitted that during pendency of Appeal
No.52/2013, one of the appellant- Sukhram died on 26.10.2013.
The appeal in these circumstances remained unrepresented and
was thus dismissed by the learned RAA vide order dated
23.01.2014 for want of prosecution.
4. Learned counsel submitted that the petitioners are legal
representatives of deceased appellant- Sukhram. Learned
counsel that the petitioners had no knowledge about pendency of
the appeal No.52/2013 before the learned RAA. The petitioners
came to know about the pendency of the appeal only in the year
2023 when the land in dispute was mutated/ registered in favour
of the respondents i.e. legal representatives of Mukhram in
accordance with the judgment and decree dated 25.03.2013
passed by the learned SDO, Suratgarh, District Sri Ganganagar.
The petitioners in these circumstances filed an application under
Section 41 Rule 19 CPC read with Section 151 CPC before the
learned RAA seeking restoration of the appeal No.52/2013
primarily on the ground that the petitioners had no knowledge
about the pendency of such an appeal as at no point of time
were they informed by the deceased- Sukhram or any other
appellant/ family member about the pendency of the same. In
the application, it was asserted that since the legal
representatives of late Shri Sukhram had no knowledge of
pendency of the appeal and the delay in seeking restoration of
the appeal was not intentional or deliberate, the same may be
(Uploaded on 20/09/2025 at 01:38:47 PM)
[2025:RJ-JD:41941] (5 of 7) [CW-17406/2025]
restored to its original number and be decided on merits.
5. Learned counsel vehemently submitted that the application
filed under Section 41 Rule 9 read with Section 151 CPC has
been dismissed by the learned RAA, Sri Gangangar vide order
dated 07.04.2025 through a non-speaking order solely on the
ground that the application seeking restoration of the appeal has
been filed after a delay of more than a decade and, therefore,
the same cannot be accepted. Being aggrieved by the order
dated 07.04.2025, the petitioners i.e. legal representatives of
Late Shri Sukhram preferred an appeal under Section 225 of the
Act of 1955 before the learned Revenue Board of Rajasthan,
Ajmer being Appeal/ T.A./ No.3730/2025 District Sri Ganganagar.
However, the said appeal filed before learned Board of Revenue,
Ajmer also came to be dismissed vide order dated 27.05.2025.
6. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the learned
RAA and learned Board of Revenue, Ajmer in the impugned
orders dated 07.04.2025 and 27.05.2025 failed to appreciate
that the condonation of delay for restoration of appeal was
requested on the ground that the petitioners i.e. legal
representatives of Sukhram had no knowledge about pendency
of appeal No.52/2013 before the learned RAA. Learned counsel
submitted that since the reasons for delay in filing the restoration
application were satisfactorily explained, the appeal No.52/2013
ought to have been restored. He prayed that a cryptic and non-
reasoned order passed by the learned RAA and learned Board of
Revenue, Ajmer may be quashed and set aside and by an
(Uploaded on 20/09/2025 at 01:38:47 PM)
[2025:RJ-JD:41941] (6 of 7) [CW-17406/2025]
appropriate direction, the appeal No.52/2013 filed before the
learned RAA against the judgment and decree dated 25.03.2013
passed by the learned SDO, Suratgarh may be ordered to be
restored.
7. Heard learned counsel for the petitioners. Perused the
material available on record.
8. In the present case, an application seeking restoration of
appeal No.52/2013 was filed by the petitioners i.e. legal
representatives of Sukhram after ten years of its dismissal on the
ground of lack of knowledge. The record of the case indicates
that appeal No.52/2013 was filed by Late Shri Sukhram and his
two other brothers namely Shriram and Tarachand and thus the
appeal was required to be prosecuted by all the three. This Court
finds it difficult to believe that none of the co-appellant or their
legal heirs, for almost about ten years, did not inform the
petitioners about dismissal of the appeal No.52/2013. It is also
pertinent to note that no specific reason has been mentioned in
the applications for restoration of appeal No.52/2013 as to why
the said appeal was also not prosecuted by the co-appellants.
This Court also fails to understand that why the fact regarding
the death of Sukhram was not informed to the learned RAA by
the counsel representing him and why no notice was given to the
petitioners, if the matter was being prosecuted seriously. Further,
there is a very vague averment been made by the petitioners
with regard to date of knowledge of the dismissal of the appeal
No.52/2013. In the opinion of this Court, the excuse with regard
(Uploaded on 20/09/2025 at 01:38:47 PM)
[2025:RJ-JD:41941] (7 of 7) [CW-17406/2025]
to lack of knowledge of pendency of appeal before the learned
RAA is very weak one as in the present case, no efforts has been
made by the petitioners nor any of the co-appellant in the last
ten years to restore the appeal. Thus, this Court finds that the
delay of ten years in seeking restoration of the appeal has not
been explained satisfactorily by the petitioners i.e. legal
representatives of Sukhram.
9. Consequently, this Court finds no merit in the present case
and the same is therefore dismissed.
10. Stay petition also stands disposed of.
(KULDEEP MATHUR),J
8-divya/-
(Uploaded on 20/09/2025 at 01:38:47 PM)
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
