[2026:RJ-JP:1313]

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 18090/2025

1. Pokar, S/o Shola

2. Ramadevi W/o Pokar, R/o Thakursikabas, Tehsil Jobner, District Jaipur ----Petitioners Versus

1. Shyoram S/o Shola (Deceased) through legal heirs

1/1. Patasi D/o Shyoram W/o Gopallal, R/o Thakursikabas, Tehsil Jobner District Jaipur

1/2. Kailash S/o Shyoram, 1/3. Rajendra S/o Shyoram, Both R/o Thakursikabas, Tehsil Jobner District Jaipur

1/4. Anju D/o Shyoram W/o Rajkumar, R/o Thakursikabas, Presently R/o Harnathpura, Tehsil Jobner District Jaipur

1/5. Manju S/o Shyoram W/o Jagdish, R/o Thakursikabas, at present R/o Harnathpura, Tehsil Jobner, District Jaipur

1/6. Smt. Gulli Devi W/o Shyoram, R/o Thakursikabas, Tehsil Jobner, District Jaipur

2. State of Rajasthan through Tehsildar Jobner, District Jaipur ----Respondents For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Mahendra Sharma For Respondent(s) :

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MANEESH SHARMA

Order

13/01/2026

1. The present writ petition has been filed by the petitioners assailing the order dated 26.09.2025 passed by the learned Board of Revenue, Jaipur whereby the next date has been fixed for hearing on the application for raising preliminary objections regarding maintainability of the revision petition dated 08.11.2024 filed by the respondents instead of passing orders on application under Order 41 Rule 27 of CPC filed by the petitioners on

24.07.2025.

2. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the learned Board of Revenue erred in passing the impugned order dated 26.09.2025 as on a previous occasion i.e. 21.08.2025, learned Board of Revenue had heard arguments on the petitioners' application under Order 41 Rule 27 of CPC and had reserved the order on the same, yet till date no decision has been pronounced. He further submits that in view of the same, learned Board of Revenue ought to have decided the petitioners' application under Order 41 Rule 27 of CPC instead of fixing a date for hearing arguments on the respondents' application dated 08.11.2024 for raising preliminary objections about maintainability of the revision petition.

3. Heard and considered the submissions and perused the material available on record.

4. From bare perusal of the record, it is revealed that vide order-sheet dated 28.04.2025 learned Board of Revenue has fixed the case for considering the preliminary objections/ application filed by the respondents under Section 151 of CPC dated 08.11.2024, as at the time of dictating the order only the said fact came into the knowledge of the learned Board of Revenue, therefore, learned Board of Revenue has fixed the case for arguments on preliminary objections regarding maintainability of the revision petition in compliance of the previous order-sheet dated 28.04.2025.

5. A bare perusal of the order also reveals that vide impugned order dated 26.09.2025 none of the legal rights of the petitioners were vitiated or adversely affected. The learned Court has merely fixed the case for deciding the respondent's application raising preliminary objections on the maintainability of the revision petition in compliance of the earlier order-sheet dated

28.04.2025.

6. Since the impugned order no where affects any right of the present petitioners, as their application under Order 41 Rule 27 of CPC is still pending, and the matter has merely been posted for deciding the respondent's application regarding maintainability of the revision petition in view of the previous order sheet dated 28.04.2025, therefore, this Court finds no infirmity, arbitrariness or perversity in the impugned order dated 26.09.2025 so as to warrant any interference by this Court under the powers conferred by Article 227 of the Constitution of India.

7. Accordingly, the present writ petition fails and is hereby dismissed.

8. All other pending application(s), if any, shall stand disposed of.

(MANEESH SHARMA),J DEEPA-7