[Cites 1, Cited by 0]
Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur
Lalchand vs Hari Ram on 6 February, 2026
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
JODHPUR
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 2640/2026
1. Lalchand S/o Late Bhagwati @ Bhagwani Devi, D/o
Modaram, Aged About 54 Years, Resident Of Indra
Colony, Bikaner, District Bikaner Through His Power Of
Attorney Holder Laxman S/o Salagram Gehlot, Age About
58, R/o 2E-112, Jai Narayan Vyas Colony, Bikaner
2. Sundarlal S/o Late Bhagwati @ Bhagwani Devi, D/o
Modaram, Aged About 52 Years, Resident Of Indra
Colony, Bikaner, District Bikaner Through His Power Of
Attorney Holder Laxman S/o Salagram Gehlot, Age About
58, R/o 2E-112, Jai Narayan Vyas Colony, Bikaner
3. Seema D/o Late Bhagwati @ Bhagwani Devi, D/o
Modaram, Aged About 49 Years, Resident Of Indra
Colony, Bikaner, District Bikaner Through Her Power Of
Attorney Holder Laxman S/o Salagram Gehlot, Age About
58, R/o 2E-112, Jai Narayan Vyas Colony, Bikaner
4. Dulichand S/o Champalal, Aged About 75 Years, Resident
Of Indra Colony, Bikaner, District Bikaner Through His
Power Of Attorney Holder Laxman S/o Salagram Gehlot,
Age About 58, R/o 2E-112, Jai Narayan Vyas Colony,
Bikaner
----Petitioners
Versus
1. Hari Ram S/o Modaram, R/o Kismidesar, Tehsil And
District Bikaner
2. State Of Rajasthan, Through Tehsildar (Revenue), Bikaner
3. Shanti Devi W/o Late Gangaram, Resident Of
Kishmidesar, Bikaner, District Bikaner
4. Ganesh S/o Late Gangaram, Resident Of Kishmidesar,
Bikaner, District Bikaner
5. Murli S/o Late Gangaram, Resident Of Kishmidesar,
Bikaner, District Bikaner
6. Ratanlal S/o Late Gangaram, Resident Of Kishmidesar,
Bikaner, District Bikaner
7. Kishore S/o Late Gangaram, Resident Of Kishmidesar,
Bikaner, District Bikaner
8. Pushpa @ Mulya D/o Late Gangaram, Resident Of
(Uploaded on 06/02/2026 at 05:34:09 PM)
(Downloaded on 06/02/2026 at 09:56:58 PM)
(2 of 3) [CW-2640/2026]
Kishmidesar, Bikaner, District Bikaner
9. Manju D/o Late Gangaram, Resident Of Kishmidesar,
Bikaner, District Bikaner
----Respondents
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Rakesh Kumar Chotia
For Respondent(s) :
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJEET PUROHIT
Order
06/02/2026
1. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that upon the
death of one of the appellants - Shri Gangaram, an application
was filed for abatement of appeal as no steps were taken to bring
legal representatives of late Shri Gangaram on record.
2. In such circumstances, on the request of other appellant -
Shri Hariram, name of Shri Gangaram was deleted from array of
appellants. On a subsequent application filed on behalf of
petitioners that since the name of appellant - Shri Gangaram has
been deleted, entire appeal stands abated, other appellant - Shri
Hariram moved an application under Order 1 Rule 10 C.P.C. for
impleading legal representatives of Shri Gangaram on record.
3. Learned Board of Revenue, vide its order dated 08.01.2026,
has rejected the application of petitioner for abatement of appeal
and proceeded to allow the application of appellant - Shri Hariram
for impleading legal representatives of Shri Gangaram under
Order 1 Rule 10 C.P.C.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the said
order is against basic tenets of law as when legal representatives
(Uploaded on 06/02/2026 at 05:34:09 PM)
(3 of 3) [CW-2640/2026]
of Shri Gangaram were not brought on record earlier and his
name has already been deleted, his legal representatives cannot
now be allowed to be impleaded as parties under Order 1 Rule 10
C.P.C.
5. Matter requires consideration.
6. Issue notice. Issue notice of the stay application, returnable
within a period of four weeks.
7. In the meantime, further proceedings in Appeal Decree No.
6977/2024/TA/Bikaner, pending before learned Board of Revenue,
shall remain stayed.
(SANJEET PUROHIT),J
40-JatinS/-
(Uploaded on 06/02/2026 at 05:34:09 PM)
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
