[Cites 1, Cited by 0]
Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur
Lrs. Of Narayan Ram vs Kuna Ram (2026:Rj-Jd:8474) on 16 February, 2026
[2026:RJ-JD:8474]
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
JODHPUR
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 14304/2025
1. Lrs. Of Narayan Ram, S/o Gopu Ram R/o Near Krishi
Mandi Pipar City District Jodhpur.
2. Jawri Lal S/o Narayanram, Aged About 65 Years, R/o Near
Krishi Mandi Pipar City District Jodhpur.
3. Lrs Of Hadmanram S/o Narayanram, R/o Near Krishi
Mandi Pipar City District Jodhpur.
4. Ramniwas S/o Hadmanram, Aged About 24 Years, R/o
Near Krishi Mandi Pipar City District Jodhpur.
5. Manisha D/o Hadmanram, Aged About 22 Years, R/o Near
Krishi Mandi Pipar City District Jodhpur.
6. Anita D/o Hadmanram, Aged About 19 Years, R/o Near
Krishi Mandi Pipar City District Jodhpur.
7. Gogadevi W/o Hadmanram, Aged About 54 Years, R/o
Near Krishi Mandi Pipar City District Jodhpur.
8. Ghisaram S/o Narayanram, Aged About 62 Years, R/o
Near Krishi Mandi Pipar City District Jodhpur.
9. Lrs Hardevram S/o Shri Gopuram, R/o Near Krishi Mandi
Pipar City District Jodhpur.
10. Omaram S/o Hardevram, Aged About 49 Years, R/o Near
Krishi Mandi Pipar City District Jodhpur.
11. Babulal S/o Hardevram, Aged About 47 Years, R/o Near
Krishi Mandi Pipar City District Jodhpur.
12. Rampyari W/o Hardevram, Aged About 72 Years, R/o
Near Krishi Mandi Pipar City District Jodhpur.
13. Kanwaridevi D/o Hardevram, Aged About 50 Years, R/o
Near Krishi Mandi Pipar City District Jodhpur.
14. Samudevi D/o Hardevram, Aged About 48 Years, R/o
Near Krishi Mandi Pipar City District Jodhpur.
15. Parmadevi D/o Hardevram, Aged About 43 Years, R/o
Near Krishi Mandi Pipar City District Jodhpur.
16. Amraram S/o Sonaram, Aged About 57 Years, R/o Near
Krishi Mandi Pipar City District Jodhpur.
17. Lrs Of Pyarelal S/o Sonaram, R/o Near Krishi Mandi Pipar
City District Jodhpur.
18. Kusum W/o Pyarelal, Aged About 52 Years, R/o Near
(Uploaded on 17/02/2026 at 08:46:12 PM)
(Downloaded on 17/02/2026 at 09:07:29 PM)
[2026:RJ-JD:8474] (2 of 3) [CW-14304/2025]
Krishi Mandi Pipar City District Jodhpur.
19. Jitendra S/o Pyarelal, Aged About 30 Years, R/o Near
Krishi Mandi Pipar City District Jodhpur.
20. Ramesh S/o Pyarelal, Aged About 28 Years, R/o Near
Krishi Mandi Pipar City District Jodhpur.
21. Bhawna D/o Pyarelal, Aged About 25 Years, R/o Near
Krishi Mandi Pipar City District Jodhpur.
22. Lrs Of Mangidevi W/o Sonaram, R/o Near Krishi Mandi
Pipar City District Jodhpur.
23. Kamla D/o Sonaram, Aged About 54 Years, R/o Near
Krishi Mandi Pipar City District Jodhpur.
24. Sunita D/o Sonaram, Aged About 47 Years, R/o Near
Krishi Mandi Pipar City District Jodhpur.
25. Maina D/o Sonaram, Aged About 49 Years, R/o Near
Krishi Mandi Pipar City District Jodhpur.
----Petitioners
Versus
1. Kuna Ram S/o Babulal, R/o Near Pipar Krishi Mandi Tehsil
Bilada District Jodhpur.
2. Nema Ram S/o Babulal, R/o Near Pipar Krishi Mandi Tehsil
Bilada District Jodhpur.
3. Smt. Kuma Devi W/o Babulal, R/o Pipar City, District
Jodhpur.
4. Board of Revenue, Ajmer.
5. Collector, Bilada, District Jodhpur.
----Respondents
For Petitioner(s) : Ms. Kamini Joshi.
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJEET PUROHIT
Order
16/02/2026
1. Learned counsel for petitioners seeks limited indulgence of
this Court for issuing appropriate directions to Learned Board of
Revenue, Ajmer to decide pending Revision Petition No.
1242/2023 expeditiously.
2. Explaining the facts of the present case, learned counsel for
the petitioners submits that a revenue suit bearing no. 236/2011
(Uploaded on 17/02/2026 at 08:46:12 PM)
[2026:RJ-JD:8474] (3 of 3) [CW-14304/2025]
was filed and the same is pending adjudication before Original
Court since last 30 years. It is stated that in the meantime,
application under Order I Rule 10 CPC for impleadment was filed,
which was allowed by Learned Assistant Collector, Bilara vide order
dated 09.02.2023, which was challenged in a Revision Petition No.
1242/2023, wherein the record was summoned on 16.05.2023.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that since last 3
years, revision petition is subjudice before Board of Revenue and
since the record has already been summoned, even the trial
proceedings could not proceed further.
4. In view of the submissions made and looking to the fact that
the trial of revenue suit is pending since last 3 decades, this Court
deems it appropriate to dispose of present writ petition with a
direction to learned Board of Revenue to decide the revision
petition no. 1242/2023 as expeditiously as possible preferably
within a period of two months from the date of receipt of a
certified copy of this order. The same shall be done without
granting any unnecessary adjournments to either of the parties.
5. After completion of the proceedings of revision petition, the
record be sent back to the trial Court for its disposal.
6. It is made clear that this order shall not be construed as
directing respondent - Authority to decide the revision petition of
petitioner in any manner, but only in accordance with law.
7. Stay petition and all other pending applications, if any, stand
disposed of.
(SANJEET PUROHIT),J
14-sumer/-
(Uploaded on 17/02/2026 at 08:46:12 PM)
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
