Rajasthan High Court – Jaipur
Rajendra Prasad S/O Shri Ramdev Singh vs Shri Kurda Ram S/O Shri Bhoma Ram … on 10 February, 2025
Author: Mahendar Kumar Goyal
Bench: Mahendar Kumar Goyal
[2025:RJ-JP:5836]
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN
BENCH AT JAIPUR
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 13095/2018
1. Rajendra Prasad S/o Shri Ramdev Singh, aged about 32
Yrs. Resident Of Kheshwa Ki Dhani, Tan Parasrampura,
Tehsil Nawalgarh District Jhunjhunu.
2. Permeshwar Lal S/o Shri Ramdev Singh, Aged About 28
Years, Resident Of Kheshwa Ki Dhani, Tan Parasrampura,
Tehsil Nawalgarh District Jhunjhunu.
3. Kanhiya Lal Son Of Shri Ramdev Singh, Aged About 15
Years, Through Natural Guardian Ramdev Singh S/o Motu
Ram Resident Of Kheshwa Ki Dhani, Tan Parasrampura,
Tehsil Nawalgarh District Jhunjhunu.
----Petitioners
Versus
1. Shri Kurda Ram S/o Shri Bhoma Ram (Deceased) through
Successors
1/1. Mohan Lal S/o Kurda Ram, Aged 50 Years, R/o Beelwa
The Nawalgarh District Jhunjhunu
1/2. Sultan S/o Kurda Ram, Aged About 48 Years, R/o Beelwa
The Nawalgarh District Jhunjhunu
1/3. Mool Chand S/o Kurda Ram, Aged About 45 Years, R/o
Beelwa The Nawalgarh District Jhunjhunu
1/4. Subhash Chand S/o Kurda Ram, Aged About 42 Years,
R/o Beelwa The Nawalgarh District Jhunjhunu
1/5. Jhamkori Devi D/o Kurda Ram W/o Sh Sukhdev, R/o
Bhojasar Bada Tehsil Nawalgarh District Jhunjhunu.
1/6. Jeevli Devi D/o Kurda Ram W/o Shri Ratna Ram, R/o
Bhojasar Bada Tehsil Nawalgarh District Jhunjhunu.
1/7. Chuki Devi D/o Kurda Ram W/o Shri Moti Lal, R/o
Badwasi Tehsil Nawalgarh District Jhunjhunu.
2. Banwari, Aged About 45 Years, S/o Shri Ganpat
3. Pyare Lal, Aged About 35 Years, S/o Bhagirath
4. Shyo Lal S/o Shri Rugram, Aged About 36 Years, Resident
Of Bilwa, Tan Parasrampura, Tehsil Nawalgarh District
Jhunjhunu, Rajasthan.
5. Jhabar Ram S/o Shri Geega Ram, aged about 50 yrs,
(Downloaded on 10/02/2025 at 11:27:06 PM)
[2025:RJ-JP:5836] (2 of 4) [CW-13095/2018]
Resident Of Kheshwa Ki Dhani, Tan Parasrampura, Tehsil
Nawalgarh District Jhunjhunu.
6. State Of Rajasthan, Through Tehsildar Nawalgarh (Land
Holder)
----Respondents
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Narendra Singh Yadav
For Respondent(s) : Mr. Jay Vardhan Joshi for
Mr. Bharat Vyas, AAG
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MAHENDAR KUMAR GOYAL
Judgment / Order
10/02/2025
This writ petition is directed against the order dated
20.04.2018 passed by the Board of Revenue, Rajasthan, Ajmer
(for brevity "the BoR") in Revision Petition No.2405/2005 whereby,
while allowing the revision petition preferred by the predecessor-
in-interest of the respondents No.1/1 to 1/7/plaintiffs (for short
"the plaintiff"), the order dated 07.04.2005 passed by the Court of
Sub-Divisional Officer, Nawalgarh (hereinafter referred to as "the
trial Court") dismissing an application filed by the plaintiff under
Order 26 Rules 9 and 10 CPC, has been set aside.
The relevant facts in brief are that the plaintiff filed a suit for
declaration, correction of entries, partition and permanent
injunction against the petitioners and the proforma respondents
No.2 to 6. Therein, he filed an application under Order 26 Rules 9
and 10 CPC seeking appointment of Site Commissioner which was
dismissed by the trial Court vide order dated 07.04.2005. The
revision petition preferred thereagainst by the plaintiff came to be
allowed by the BoR vide order impugned dated 20.04.2018.
(Downloaded on 10/02/2025 at 11:27:06 PM)
[2025:RJ-JP:5836] (3 of 4) [CW-13095/2018]
Assailing the order, learned counsel for the petitioners
contends that the BoR did not appreciate that the plaintiff had
filed the application with delay, i.e., after framing of the issues and
therefore, was not maintainable. He further submits that the
application was quite vague inasmuch as no Khasra number was
mentioned therein. He, therefore, prays that the writ petition be
allowed, the order impugned dated 20.04.2018 be quashed and
set aside and the application filed by the plaintiff be dismissed.
Per contra, learned counsel for the plaintiff, supporting the
findings recorded by the BoR, prayed for dismissal of the writ
petition.
Heard. Considered.
While accepting the revision petition and allowing the
application filed by the plaintiff under Order 26 Rules 9 and 10
CPC, the BoR, appreciating the facts of the case and rival
contentions made by the respective parties with regard to their
possession over the subject property/its part, held that to
elucidate the matter in dispute, appointment of the site
commissioner was necessary.
Their Lordships have, in the case of Rahul S Shah versus
Jitendra Kumar Gandhi & Ors.: Civil Appeal Nos.1659-1660
of 2021 (@ Special Leave to Appeal Nos.7965-7966/2020
decided on 22.04.2021, held that in case of dispute as to the
possession over the immovable property, the Court should liberally
resort to the appointment of site commissioner to bring the true
and correct position before the Court as to exact
description/demarcation of the property including the nature and
occupation of the property.
(Downloaded on 10/02/2025 at 11:27:06 PM)
[2025:RJ-JP:5836] (4 of 4) [CW-13095/2018]
In view thereof, this Court finds no reason, under its limited
writ jurisdiction, to interfere with the well reasoned order passed
by the BoR in exercise of its judicious discretion based on sound
legal principles.
The submissions made by the learned counsel for the
petitioners do not merit acceptance. Order 26 Rule 9, unlike Order
6 Rule 17 CPC, does not circumscribe the right of a party, to move
an application qua the stage of the proceeding.
Resultantly, this civil writ petition is dismissed being devoid
of merit. Pending application(s), if any, also stands disposed of.
(MAHENDAR KUMAR GOYAL),J
Manish/53
(Downloaded on 10/02/2025 at 11:27:06 PM)
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
[ad_1]
Source link