[2025:RJ-JD:53915]

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT

JODHPUR

S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 21964/2025

Madan Lal S/o Mangi Lal Khatri, Aged About 79 Years, Resident

Of Khatri Colony, Ward No. 21, Balotra.

----Petitioner

Versus

1. Lrs. Of Late Nand Lal, Through -

1/1. Smt. Sarla W/o Ramjimalji (Ramji Lalji), D/o Prahlad

Ram, (Since Deceased Through Lrs) -

1/1/ Smt. Hansa W/o Ramesh Sevak, D/o Shri Prahalad,

1. Resident Of Chohtan, District Barmer.

1/1/ Smt. Renuka D/o Prahlad, Resident Of Gandhi Nagar,

2. Jaisalmer.

1/1/ Mukesh S/o Prahlad, Resident Of Umiya Nagar, Deesa,

3. District Banaskanta, Gujarat.

1/1/ Raju S/o Prahlad, Resident Of Umiya Nagar, Deesa,

4. District Banaskanta, Gujarat.

1/2. Smt. Gayatri Devi W/o Madan Lal, D/o Shri Ramji Lal,

Resident Of Village Jasol, District Balotra.

1/3. Prem Kumar S/o Kesarimal, Resident Of Village Osiyan, At

Present Nayapura, District Balotra.

----Respondents

For Petitioner(s) : Mr. C.S. Kotwani

Mr. Abhijit Charan

Mr. Chinmay Shekhar Kotwani

For Respondent(s) : Mr. Sanjay Punia

Mr. Pankaj Sharma

JUSTICE ANOOP KUMAR DHAND

Order

15/12/2025

1. By way of filing the instant writ petition, a challenge has been led to the impugned order dated 30.10.2025 passed by Additional District

& Sessions Judge, Balotra.

2. By passing the order impugned, two applications submitted by the petitione - one under Order 6 Rule 17 read with Section 151 CPC, and the other under Order 41 Rule 27 read with Section 151 CPC -

have been rejected.

3. At this stage, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner has confined the instant petition to the extent of challenging the order impugned, so far as the application under Order 6 Rule 17 CPC read withe Section 151 has been rejected.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that a suit for eviction, on the ground of default in payment of arrears of rent, was filed by the respondents against the petitioner before the Court of Civil Judge, Balotra, District Barmer. The aforesaid suit was decreed by the Civil Judge vide order dated 04.10.2016 and an order of eviction was passed against the petitioner. Against the aforesaid order, an appeal has been preferred by the petitioner before the Court below and the same is lying pending for its adjudication.

5. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that during pendency of the aforesaid appeal, the subject property has been sold by the plaintiff to a subsequent purchaser by way of a registered agreement to sell and the entire sale consideration amount has also been received by the plaintiff-respondent. Counsel further submits that in fact, the language of the agreement reveals that the possession of the subject land has also been transferred to the subsequent purchaser. Hence, nothing more is required to treat the aforesaid agreement to sell as a registered sale deed that has been duly executed to its full extent.

6. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner wanted to take note of the subsequent events, which have arisen during pendency of the appeal, and as a matter of fact, resultantly, the plaintiff is not the landlord of the petitioner as he has already sold the subject land to the subsequent purchaser. However, all these facts have not been appreciated by the learned Court below while rejecting the application submitted by the petitioner. Hence, interference of this Court is warranted.

7. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents opposes the submissions made by learned counsel for the petitioner and submits that till date, a registered sale deed is has not been executed, and that the agreement to sell cannot be treated as a registered sale deed. Hence, under these circumstances, till date the plaintiff is the rightful owner of the subject property. Learned counsel submits that it is a settled proposition of law that a suit for eviction shall continue till the title of the subject land is not transferred in the name of the subsequent buyer.

8. In support of his submissions, learned counsel for the