Rajasthan High Court – Jaipur
Tejaram Son Of Bhanwar vs Ramesh Son Of Ramgopal … on 30 January, 2025
Author: Mahendar Kumar Goyal
Bench: Mahendar Kumar Goyal
[2025:RJ-JP:4160]
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN
BENCH AT JAIPUR
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 15683/2024
1. Tejaram Son Of Bhanwar, Aged About 65 Years
2. Nanchhilal Son Of Bhanwar
3. Rameshwarlal Son Of Bhanwar
4. Ramswaroop Son Of Bhanwar
5. Smt. Mhori W/o Bhanwar, (Died)
6. Prabhat Son Of Chhotu
All are Resident Of Village Bhambhoriya, Tehsil Sanganer,
District Jaipur (Raj.).
----Petitioners-Appellants
Versus
1. Ramesh Son Of Ramgopal
2. Mahesh Son Of Ramgopal
3. Narayani D/o Ramgopal
4. Bhuri D/o Ramgopal
5. Beena D/o Ramgopal
Respondents No.1 to 5 are Resident Of Village
Bhambhoriya, Tehsil Sanganer, District Jaipur (Raj.).
6. State Of Rajasthan, Through Tehsildar, Sanganer, District
Jaipur.
----Respondents-Defendants
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Brijesh Kumar Bhardwaj
For Respondent(s) :
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MAHENDAR KUMAR GOYAL
Judgment / Order
30/01/2025
This writ petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of
India is directed against the order dated 09.05.2024 passed by
the Board of Revenue, Rajasthan, Ajmer (for brevity "the BoR") in
Appeal No.1094/2024 filed by the petitioners whereby, their
appeal has been dismissed being barred by limitation.
The relevant facts in brief are that Ramgopal- predecessor-
in-interest of the respondents No.1 to 5 filed a suit for partition
and permanent injunction against the petitioners and the
respondent No.6 wherein, preliminary decree was passed by the
(Downloaded on 30/01/2025 at 10:36:27 PM)
[2025:RJ-JP:4160] (2 of 3) [CW-15683/2024]
Court of Assistant Collector vide judgment dated 10.02.2004 and
the final decree was passed vide judgment dated 30.11.2011. The
first appeal preferred thereagainst by the petitioners came to be
dismissed by the Revenue Appellate Authority, Jaipur vide
judgment dated 08.08.2017 and the second appeal preferred
thereagaint has been dismissed by the BoR vide order impugned
dated 09.05.2024 as stated hereinabove.
Assailing the order impugned, learned counsel for petitioners
submits that while dismissing the appeal, the BoR did not
appreciate that they were able to get certified copies on
25.01.2024 and within a period of twenty days thereafter, they
have preferred the second appeal. He further submits that it was
ignored that one of the petitioners namely Shri Rameshwar had
injury in his leg. He, therefore, prays that the writ petition be
allowed, the order impugned dated 09.05.2024 be quashed and
set aside and the matter be remanded to the BoR for hearing the
appeal on its merit.
Heard. Considered.
A perusal of the order impugned reveals that initially, the
petitioners have assailed the judgment dated 08.08.2017 passed
by the Revenue Appellate Authority by way of a revision petition
which came to be dismissed by a Single Bench of the BoR vide
order dated 26.10.2023 as not maintainable. However, the
petitioners were granted a liberty to assail the judgment dated
08.08.2017 by way of an appeal with an observation that in case,
the appeal is preferred within a period of a month, it would be
treated to be within limitation. However, the petitioners preferred
the appeal on 15.02.2024, i.e., much beyond the period of one
(Downloaded on 30/01/2025 at 10:36:27 PM)
[2025:RJ-JP:4160] (3 of 3) [CW-15683/2024]
month for which liberty was granted to them while dismissing their
revision petition. The BoR has, while dismissing the application
filed under Section 5 of the Limitation Act as also the second
appeal, held that there was no document on record in support of
the contention that one of petitioners has received injury in his
leg. It was also observed that there are five more appellants other
than Shri Rameshwar and there was not a whisper of averment as
to why they could not have preferred the appeal in time. Although,
learned counsel for the petitioners has averred that they were able
to obtain certified copies on 25.01.2024; however, this Court is
not apprised as to when they applied for getting the same. Even
otherwise, it has been held by the BoR that even after obtaining
the certified copies on 25.01.2024, the appeal has been preferred
on 15.02.2024, i.e., with a delay of about 20 days without offering
any explanation for it. This delay of twenty days gains importance
in view of the fact that the petitioners were given a month’s time
to prefer the appeal by the BoR while dismissing their revision
petition vide order dated 26.10.2023.
In view of the aforesaid findings, which are based on
appreciation of the material on record, this Court finds no occasion
to interfere in the same under its limited supervisory jurisdiction
vide Article 227 of the Constitution of India.
Resultantly, this writ petition is dismissed being devoid of
merit. Pending application(s), if any, also stands disposed of.
(MAHENDAR KUMAR GOYAL),J
Manish/11
(Downloaded on 30/01/2025 at 10:36:27 PM)
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
[ad_1]
Source link