Disposed¶28

Bikhu Singh Son of Late Shri Bhairu Singh v. Municipal Board Pushkar

Rajasthan HC1 Jul 2025CW/9211/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Keywords: Board of Revenue; Section 96 CPC leave to file appeal; Section 5 Limitation Act condonation of delay; Section 224 Rajasthan Tenancy Act 1955; khatedaar declaration; Municipal Board Pushkar; Court of Revenue Appellate Authority judgment 31.07.2023; sequencing of appellate consideration; writ disposed of with direction.

What did the court decide?

Writ petition disposed of with a specific direction to the Board of Revenue to first decide the application under Section 96 CPC seeking leave to file appeal and the application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act for condonation of delay, expeditiously and strictly in accordance with law, with due opportunity of hearing to all respective parties, before deciding the Section 224 appeal finally; stay application and all pending applications stand disposed of. ¶28

Bikhu Singh Son of Late Shri Bhairu Singh Vs Municipal Board Pushkar — Rajasthan HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

¶28

Issue for consideration

Whether the Board of Revenue must decide the Municipal Board Pushkar's application under Section 96 CPC seeking leave to file appeal and the application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act for condonation of delay before hearing and deciding the appeal under Section 224 of the Rajasthan Tenancy Act, 1955 on its merits.

¶20

Court's answer

As a settled proposition of law, until and unless the application seeking leave to file appeal is decided along-with the application for condonation of delay, and until the delay in filing the appeal is condoned, the appellate court cannot hear and decide the main matter finally.

¶27

Ratio / Principle

The writ petition is disposed of with a specific direction to the Board to first decide the Municipal Board Pushkar's application under Section 96 CPC and the application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act before deciding the appeal finally; both applications are to be decided expeditiously, strictly in accordance with law, after providing due opportunity of hearing to all respective parties.

¶28

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Rajasthan HC (Jaipur Bench) disposed of a civil writ petition directing the Board of Revenue to first decide the Municipal Board Pushkar's application under Section 96 CPC seeking leave to file appeal (the Board not having been a party before the RAA) and its application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act for condonation of delay, before hearing its Section 224, Rajasthan Tenancy Act, 1955 appeal against the RAA judgment dated 31.07.2023 declaring the petitioners khatedaar; held that until leave and condonation applications are decided and the delay condoned, the appellate court cannot hear and decide the main matter finally.

¶1

[2025:RJ-JP:24001]

¶2

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR

¶3

S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 9211/2025

¶4

Bikhu Singh Son of Late Shri Bhairu Singh, Aged About 62 Years, Resident of Agastya Muni Ki Gufa, Nalla, Pushkar, Tehsil Pushkar, District Ajmer.

¶5

Ram Singh Son of Late Shri Bhairu Singh, Aged About 60 Years, Resident of Agastya Muni Ki Gufa, Nalla, Pushkar, Tehsil Pushkar, District Ajmer.

¶6

----Petitioners

¶7

Versus

¶8

Municipal Board Pushkar, Through Its Executive Officer, Pushkar, District Ajmer.

¶9

State of Rajasthan Through Its Collector, District Ajmer.

¶10

----Respondents

¶11

For Petitioner(s) : Mr.Dilip Sharma

¶12

JUSTICE ANOOP KUMAR DHAND

¶13

Order

¶14

01/07/2025

¶15

Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the appeal preferred by the petitioners before the Court of Revenue Appellate Authority (for short, “the RAA”) was allowed vide judgment dated 31.07.2023 wherein the petitioners were declared as khatedaar of the subject land. Counsel submits that aggrieved by the aforesaid judgment dated 31.07.2023, an appeal under Section 224 of the Rajasthan Tenancy Act, 1955 (for short, “the Act of 1955”) has been preferred by the Municipal Board, Pushkar before the Board of Revenue (for short, “the Board”) along-with an application under Section 96 CPC seeking leave to file appeal as the Municipal Board, Pushkar was not party in the array of the cause-title before

[2025:RJ-JP:24001]

[CW-9211/2025]

(2 of 3)

the First Appellate Court, i.e., the RAA. Counsel submits that an application filed under Section 96 seeking leave to file appeal and the application filed under Section 5 of the Limitation Act seeking condonation of delay in filing the appeal has not been decided and the case has straightaway been posted for final arguments.

¶20

Counsel submits that until and unless the application filed under Section 96 CPC seeking leave to file appeal and application filed under Section 5 of the Limitation Act for condonation of delay is not decided, the appeal under Section 224 cannot be heard and decided on its merits and demerits, hence, interference of this Court is warranted.

¶21

Heard and considered the submissions made at Bar and perused the material available on record. 4. Perusal of the record indicates that in the appeal preferred by the petitioners before the RAA, the Municipal Board, Pushkar was not party in the array of cause-title and the appeal preferred by the petitioners was allowed vide impugned judgment dated 31.07.2023 by the RAA.

¶22

It appears that feeling aggrieved by the aforesaid judgment, an appeal under Section 224 of the Act of 1955 has been preferred by the Municipal Board, Pushkar before the Board alongwith an application under Section 96 CPC and an application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, as the appeal was barred by Limitation Act.

¶23

It is settled proposition of law that until and unless the application submitted by the party seeking leave to file appeal is not decided along-with the application filed under Section 5 of the Limitation Act seeking condonation of delay and until the delay in

[2025:RJ-JP:24001]

[CW-9211/2025]

(3 of 3)

filing appeal is not condoned, the Appellate Court cannot hear and decide the main matter finally.

¶28

Considering the above, the instant writ petition stands disposed of with a specific direction to the Board to first decide the application submitted by the Municipal Board, Pushkar under Section 96 CPC so also the application filed under Section 5 of the Limitation Act before deciding the appeal finally. It is expected from the Board to decide both these applications expeditiously strictly in accordance with law, after providing due opportunity of hearing to all the respective parties.

¶29

Stay application and all pending application(s), if any, also stand disposed of.

¶30

(ANOOP KUMAR DHAND),J

¶31

Aayush Sharma /8

Bikhu Singh Son of Late Shri Bhairu Singh v. Municipal Board Pushkar

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Bikhu Singh Son of Late Shri Bhairu Singh v. Municipal Board Pushkar

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Tijaria Polypipes Limited Vs Union of India

Reetu Tanwar Wife of Late Shri Shakti Singh Vs H.D.F.C. Bank Ltd.

M/S. Volta Switchgear India Pvt. Ltd. Vs Rajasthan State Industrial Development and Investment Corporation Ltd. Riico)

Rajpal S/O Prithvi Singh Vs the State of Rajasthan

Mohammed Imran S/O Shri Naimuddeen Vs State of Rajasthan

Jairam Verma Son of Shri Shivram Verma Vs State of Rajasthan