Dismissed

Bholaram Son of Ganpat v. Sitaram

Rajasthan HC2 Aug 2021CW/3022/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court dismissed a writ petition challenging an order allowing an application to add legal representatives as plaintiffs despite a ten-day delay. The court held that strict pleading rules should not apply to revenue courts and found no grounds for interference given the minimal delay.

What did the court decide?

The writ petition was dismissed, leaving the orders of the SDO court and the Revenue Court unimpeached.

Bholaram Son of Ganpat Vs Sitaram — Civil Procedure and Limitation | Rajasthan HC (2021)

¶1

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR

¶2

S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 3022/2021

¶3

Bholaram Son Of Ganpat, Aged About 82 Years, Resident Of Village Badarna Tehsil Amer, District Jaipur.

¶4

Nathulal Son Of Ganpat, Aged About 75 Years, Resident Of Village Badarna Tehsil Amer, District Jaipur.

¶5

Babulal Son Of Ganpat, Aged About 72 Years, Resident Of Village Badarna Tehsil Amer, District Jaipur.

¶6

----Petitioners

¶7

Versus

¶8

Sitaram, Son Of Prabhati Devi And Ramsahay

¶9

Rampal, Son Of Prabhati Devi And Ramsahay

¶10

Ramgopal, Son Of Prabhati Devi And Ramsahay

¶11

Kailash, Son Of Prabhati Devi And Ramsahay

¶12

State Of Rajasthan, Through Tehsildar Amer, District Jaipur.

¶13

Sub Registrar, Amer, District Jaipur.

¶14

Birda Son Of Prabhat, Aged About 57 Years, Resident Of Village Badarna, Tehsil Amer, District Jaipur.

¶15

Kana Son Of Prabhat, Aged About 40 Years, Resident Of Village Badarna, Tehsil Amer, District Jaipur.

¶16

Jagdish Son Of Prabhat, Aged About 60 Years, Resident Of Village Badarna, Tehsil Amer, District Jaipur.

¶17

Laxmi Nagar Grah Nirman Sahkari Samiti Ltd., Jaipur Through Minister Surendra Prasad Sharma Son Of Prabhu Dayal Sharma, Office Address- Hanuman Tower, Gangauri Bazar, Brhmpuri Khura, Jaipur.

¶18

Rampyari D/o Late Prabhati Devi W/o Narayan Mehta, R/o Village Morija, Tehsil Chomu, District Jaipur.

¶19

Dhapa Devi D/o Late Prabhati Devi W/o Chitarmal, R/o Village Bhanpur Kalan, Tehsil Jamwaramgarh, District Jaipur.

¶20

----Respondents

¶21

For Petitioner(s) : Mr. R K Gouttam For Respondent(s) : Mr. Abhishek Pareek

¶22

(2 of 3)

¶23

[CW-3022/2021]

¶24

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJEEV PRAKASH SHARMA

¶25

Judgment / Order

¶26

02/08/2021

¶27

The petitioners by way of this writ petition assail the order dated 12.01.2021 passed by the Board of Revenue whereby the revision petition preferred by the respondents was allowed and while reversing the order passed by the SDO court dated 13.09.2019, allowed the application moved under Order 22 Rule 3 & 9 CPC.

¶28

Learned counsel submits that the application moved under Order 22 Rule 3 & 9 CPC was belated by ten days and an application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act had not been moved and therefore, the learned SDO had committed an error in allowing the application for taking LRs of deceased-plaintiff on record.

¶29

Learned counsel further submits that no specific reasons have been mentioned in the application moved by the LRs of having filed the application belatedly. Learned counsel further submits that the Revenue Court has also erred in not considering the aspect while rejecting the revision filed by the petitioners.

¶30

Learned counsel appearing for the caveator-respondents submits that in the application itself reasons were mentioned and the delay was only of ten days which could be condoned by the court orally too.

¶31

I have considered the submissions.

¶32

The power exercised by this Court while examining the order passed by Revenue Court is limited. If there can be two opinions, the opinion already taken up by the Revenue Court would not be interfered with by this Court in writ jurisdiction merely because

¶33

(3 of 3)

¶34

[CW-3022/2021]

¶35

there can be a different approach also in dealing with matters relating to taking LRs on record.

¶36

In the opinion of this Court, the revenue courts are to follow CPC however, strict rules of pleading may not be that as required in civil courts.

¶37

Taking into consideration that the application for taking LRs on record was only ten days belated, this Court does not find any reason to interfere with the orders passed by the SDO as well as by Revenue Court.

¶38

The writ petition is devoid of merits and the same is accordingly dismissed.

¶39

(SANJEEV PRAKASH SHARMA),J

¶40

SAURABH YADAV /670/2

Bholaram Son of Ganpat v. Sitaram

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Bholaram Son of Ganpat v. Sitaram

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Govind Singh and Anr. Vs State Panchayati Raj Ors.

Manish Rav @ Chiku Vs State of Rajasthan

Kailash @ Bhaga Ram Vs State of Rajasthan-State

Raj Kapoor S/O Hari Singh Vs Chiddhi Alias Chiddu Singh S/O Sheoli

Badri Lal Jaat Son of Chithar Jaat Vs State of Rajasthan

Revant Ram Moond Filling Station Vs Principal Secretary, PWD