HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN JODHPUR S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 8382/2024 Mada Ram ----Petitioner Versus Divisional Commissioner ----Respondent For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Muktesh Maheshwari with Mr. Gaurav Choudhary For Respondent(s) : Mr. Mahendra Thanvi Mr. Bharat Boob HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE NUPUR BHATI

Order

15/01/2026

1. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that on 07.01.2026, learned counsel appearing for the respondents stated before this Court that an application under Order I Rule 10 of the Code of Civil Procedure had been filed seeking impleadment of the applicant as a party respondent in the present writ petition, whle also submitting that an application under Article 226(3) of the Constitution of India seeking vacation of the interim order was also pending. Learned counsel for the petitioner categorically submits that no such application under Article 226(3) of the Constitution of India has, in fact, been filed by the respondents. In response thereto, learned counsel appearing for respondent No.3 submits that he has filed a reply to the writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India containing a prayer for vacating the interim order dated 24.05.2024 passed in favour of the petitioner, and therefore, the same ought to be treated as an application under Article 226(3) of the Constitution of India.

2. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that the interim order dated 24.05.2024 was passed by the Coordinate Bench of this Court in the presence of learned counsel for respondent No.3. It is pointed out that while granting the said interim relief, the Court did not grant any liberty to the respondents to move an application seeking vacation of the interim order, hence, even assuming, without admitting, that the reply filed by respondent No.3 could be construed as an application under Article 226(3) of the Constitution of India, the same would not be maintainable in the absence of such liberty having been granted by the Court.

3. Per contra, learned counsel appearing for respondent No.3 submits that he had appeared as a caveator on 24.04.2024 and had sought time to file a reply and on that basis, he contends that he is entitled to move an application under Article 226(3) of the Constitution of India seeking vacation of the interim order.

4. Upon careful perusal of the record and the application filed by respondent No.3, this Court finds that the said application is, in essence, a reply to the stay application filed along with the writ petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. The application does not specifically invoke Article 226(3) of the Constitution of India, nor does it expressly seek vacation of the interim order in terms contemplated under the said provision. Furthermore, it cannot be overlooked that when the Coordinate Bench granted the interim order on 24.05.2024 in the presence of learned counsel for the respondents, no liberty was granted to them to file an application seeking vacation of the interim order.

5. In view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances, this Court is of the considered opinion that no application under Article 226(3) of the Constitution of India is presently pending before this Court. Additionally, in the absence of any liberty granted by the Coordinate Bench, the respondents are not entitled to maintain such an application.

6. Learned counsel for the petitioner prays for one last opportunity to file a reply to the application filed under Order I Rule 10 of the Code of Civil Procedure seeking impleadment of the applicant as a party respondent in the present writ petition. The prayer is allowed.

7. Learned counsel for the petitioner is granted three weeks’

time to file the reply.

8. List the matter after three weeks, as prayed.

9. Interim order, if any, shall continue till the next date of hearing.

(DR.NUPUR BHATI),J

70-/Devesh/-