HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 10458/2025 Gangasahay S/o Late Shri Shivdayal, & Ors.

----Petitioners Versus Radheshyam, & Ors.

----Respondents For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Prahalad Sharma For Respondent(s) : Mr. Manoj Kumar Bhardwaj HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MANEESH SHARMA

Order

27/01/2026 In Application (IA No.1/2025):-

1. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that during pendency of the second appeal, the petitioner No.2- Ramvilas was expired, and thereby, an application for taking his legal representatives on record was allowed vide order dated 08.03.2018, but due to inadvertence, the amended cause title was not reflected in the impugned order dated 30.05.2025.

2. Heard on application for passing an appropriate order regarding defects pointed out by the Registry.

3. In view of the submissions and for the reasons mentioned in the application, the application (IA No.1/2025) is allowed.

4. Office objection is overruled.

In Application (IA No.2/2025):-

1. Heard on application filed under Section 5 of the Limitation 2. For the reasons mentioned in the application, the same is allowed. The delay in filing the application is condoned.

In Application (IA No.3/2025):-

1. The application filed under Order 22 Rule 4 & 9 of the Code of Civil Procedure read with Article 226 of the Constitution of India for taking legal representatives on record.

2. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that although respondent No.3- Rameshwar expired on 18.03.2023 but this fact was not brought to the notice of the Court during the course of proceedings by the learned counsel for respondent No.3, therefore, due to lack of knowledge, the substitution application could not be filed. Immediately upon gaining knowledge of the same, the petitioners filed the said application.

3. Per contra, the learned counsel for the respondents submits that the petitioners are residents of same village, therefore, submission of the petitioners lacks bona fide and prays for dismissal of the application.

4. Heard and considered the submissions and perused the record as well as the application.

5. From the record, it is evident that the respondent No.3- Rameshwar was represented by a counsel before the learned Board of Revenue. However, the said counsel, in terms of Order 22 Rule 10A of the CPC, did not inform the Court about the death of respondent No.3- Rameshwar and because of which, the proceedings continued against the respondent No.3- Rameshwar. It is further evident that immediately upon gaining knowledge of the death of respondent No.3- Rameshwar, the petitioners filed the present application for bringing the legal representatives of respondent No.3 on record along with an application seeking

6. Since counsel of the respondent No. 3 has not intimated the factum of death of respondent No. 3- Rameshwar in terms of Order 22 Rule 10A of the CPC, the petitioners were prevented by sufficient cause from moving an application before the learned Board of Revenue. In that view of the matter, the application for substitution is allowed.

In Application (IA No.1/2026):-

1. The application filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India read with Order 41 Rule 27 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 for taking additional documents on record.

2. Learned counsel for the respondents seeks time to file reply to the application.

3. List this matter after one week in the 'fresh admission with stay' category, as prayed.

4. Till then, interim order, if any, shall continue.

(MANEESH SHARMA),J DEEPA/RAHUL-3