Allowed

Abdul Rahim Son of Latoor v. Rajnibala Wife of Chandraprakash

Rajasthan HC19 Nov 2025WMAP/476/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This order granted an extension of time to the petitioner to submit an undertaking required under a previous eviction-related order. The High Court accepted the justification for the delay and directed the trial court to accept the undertaking filed on 29.10.2025.

What did the court decide?

Application disposed of; trial Court directed to accept undertaking filed on 29.10.2025 and proceed as per previous order dated 25.08.2025.

Abdul Rahim Son of Latoor Vs Rajnibala Wife… — Civil Procedure and Limitation | Rajasthan HC (2025)

¶1

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR

¶2

S.B. Writ Miscellaneous Application No. 476/2025

¶3

Abdul Rahim Son Of Latoor, Resident Of Near State Bank Of India, Purani Dhanmandi, Bundi, Tehsil And District Bundi (Raj.)

¶4

----Petitioner

¶5

Versus

¶6

Rajnibala Wife Of Chandraprakash, Aged About 55 Years, Resident Of Magistrate Colony, Nainwa Road, Bundi Tehsil And District Bundi (Rajasthan)

¶7

Vikramjeet Anand Son Of Chandraprakash Anand, Aged About 37 Years, Resident Of Magistrate Colony, Nainwa Road, Bundi Tehsil And District Bundi (Rajasthan)

¶8

Sumit Kumar Son Of Chandraprakash Anand, Aged About 35 Years, Resident Of Magistrate Colony, Nainwa Road, Bundi Tehsil And District Bundi (Rajasthan)

¶9

Luvli Anand Daughter Of Chandraprakash Anand, Aged About 30 Years, Resident Of Magistrate Colony, Nainwa Road, Bundi Tehsil And District Bundi (Rajasthan)

¶10

----Respondents

¶11

For Petitioner(s) : Mr.Sudarshan Kumar Laddha For Respondent(s) : Mr.Vivek Choudhary, PP

¶12

JUSTICE ANOOP KUMAR DHAND

¶13

Order

¶14

19/11/2025

¶15

By way of filing this writ misc. application, a prayer has been made for extension of time for furnishing the undertaking before the trial Court in terms of the order dated 25.08.2025 passed by this Court while deciding S.B.Civil Writ Petition No.4628/2025.

¶16

Learned counsel for the applicant submits that an order of eviction was passed against the petitioner by both the Courts below against which the petitioner submitted the aforesaid writ

¶17

(2 of 3) [WMAP-476/2025]

¶18

petition which was disposed of, after hearing both the sides on 25.08.2025 with certain terms and conditions incorporated in Para No.5 of the order. Counsel submits that this Court directed the petitioner to submit an undertaking incorporating the above conditions before the trial Court within a period of four weeks from that day.

¶19

Counsel submits that certain delay occurred while getting the certified copy of the aforesaid order, hence, the undertaking was submitted on 29.10.2025 before the trial Court and by that time, the time fixed by this Court got expired, hence, the trial Court has not accepted the undertaking submitted by the petitioner. Counsel submits that in case, the time is not extended and in case, the undertaking is not taken on record, the trial Court would execute the order of eviction against the petitioner.

¶20

When the matter was listed before this Court on 18.11.2025, this Court directed the counsel for the petitioner to supply a copy of the instant misc. application in the Office of the counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent. Counsel submits that in compliance with the aforesaid order, when he tried to supply a copy in his Office, he refused to accept the same on the ground that he has received no instructions from the respondent.

¶21

Since, the undertaking has already been submitted on the record with slight delay, in the considered opinion of this Court, the reason assigned in the instant application for submission of the undertaking with slight delay appears to be justified.

¶22

Accordingly, the application stands disposed of with direction to the trial Court to take the undertaking submitted by the

¶23

(3 of 3)

¶24

[WMAP-476/2025]

¶25

petitioner on 29.10.2025 on record and proceed with the matter strictly in accordance with law in terms of the order dated 25.08.2025.

¶26

Accordingly, the instant misc. application stands disposed of. This order be treated as part and parcel of the order dated 25.08.2025.

¶27

(ANOOP KUMAR DHAND),J

¶28

Aayush Sharma /200

Abdul Rahim Son of Latoor v. Rajnibala Wife of Chandraprakash

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Abdul Rahim Son of Latoor v. Rajnibala Wife of Chandraprakash

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

Sundar Singh Son of Shri Nand Ram, Vs State of Rajasthan

Parmanand S/O Sukhlal Vs State of Rajasthan

Rukhsana Bano Wife of Shri Mohammed Aslam, Vs Mohammed Aslam Son of Shri Mohammed Salam

Dr. Raghvendra Gupta S/O Shri Brajendra Gupta, Vs State of Rajasthan

Banwari Lal Son of Shri Geegaram, Vs State of Rajasthan

Sarswati Rao W/O Jagdish Prasad Rao Vs the State of Rajasthan