##PAGE1##

[2026:RJ-JD:14682]

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR

S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 6840/2026

1. Chhau W/o Shri Rameshwar Brahmin, Aged About 84 Years, R/o Maheshpura, Tehsil And District Bhilwara (Raj.)

2. Kamala D/o Shri Rameshwar Brahmin, Aged About 62 Years, R/o Maheshpura, Tehsil And District Bhilwara (Raj.)

3. Mahaveer S/o Shri Rameshwar Brahmin, Aged About 60 Years, R/o Maheshpura, Tehsil And District Bhilwara (Raj.)

----Petitioners Versus

1. Bhopal S/o Shri Bhanwar Lal, R/o Beed Ka Kheda, Tehsil Mandalgarh, District Bhilwara (Raj.)

2. Sanjay Kumar S/o Shri Prem Shankar, R/o Beed Ka Kheda, Tehsil Mandalgarh, District Bhilwara (Raj.)

3. Dhiraj Kumar S/o Shri Prem Shankar, R/o Beed Ka Kheda, Tehsil Mandalgarh, District Bhilwara (Raj.)

4. Lalita W/o Shri Prem Shankar, R/o Beed Ka Kheda, Tehsil Mandalgarh, District Bhilwara (Raj.)

5. State Of Rajasthan, Through Tehsildar/sub-Registrar, Bhilwara (Raj.)

----Respondents

For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Rohitash Singh Rathore For Respondent(s) : -

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE FARJAND ALI

Order

28/03/2026

1. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and gone through the niceties of the matter and the averments made in the

writ petition.

2. Learned counsel for the petitioner after arguing to some extent confines his prayer for issuance of certain directions to the

(Uploaded on 04/04/2026 at 03:47:00 PM)

(Downloaded on 06/04/2026 at 08:46:31 AM)

[2026:RJ-JD:14682] (2 of 5) [CW-6840/2026] learned SDO and Assistant Collector Bhilwara for expeditious and lawful disposal of his application moved under Section 212 of the

Rajasthan Tenancy Act.

3. The prayer seems to be genuine.

4. What emanates from the material made available to this Court is that the petitioners instituted a suit for declaration and other ancillary reliefs under the provisions of the Rajasthan Tenancy Act before the learned SDO and ACM, Bhilwara in the month of August, 2025. On 22.08.2025, the learned SDO, upon due consideration of the pleadings and the material annexed therewith, was pleased to pass an ad interim order restraining the respondents from causing any interference in the possession of the petitioners over the property in question, with a specific direction not to eject them from the suit property and to maintain status quo with regard to the revenue record. Simultaneously,

notice was issued to the respondents.

4.1 The record further reflects that on several occasions the matter came to be adjourned for one reason or the other. Vide order dated 27.10.2025, the respondents were granted a last opportunity to file reply to the application under Section 212 of the Rajasthan Tenancy Act, with an observation that in case of failure, their right to file reply would stand closed. Thereafter, on 05.03.2026, the learned Court below directed the counsel for the plaintiffs to supply copies of the suit and documents to the

defendants, granting a last opportunity for the said purpose.

(Uploaded on 04/04/2026 at 03:47:00 PM)

(Downloaded on 06/04/2026 at 08:46:31 AM)

[2026:RJ-JD:14682] (3 of 5) [CW-6840/2026] 4.2 On 05.03.2026, when the matter was taken up, it was observed by the learned ACM that despite directions, the copies had not been supplied to the defendants. Taking note of the aforesaid lapse, the learned ACM declined to extend the ad interim order dated 22.08.2025 and posted the matter for reply and

arguments on 27.03.2026.

4.3 The petitioners, being aggrieved of the order dated 05.03.2026, have approached this Court contending that once the learned ACM had granted an ad interim injunction upon due consideration and upon recording satisfaction of a strong prima facie case, the same ought not to have been declined for extension until final adjudication of the application under Section

212 of the Act.

5. This Court is of the view that the petitioners were indeed under an obligation to comply with the direction issued by the learned ACM with regard to supply of copies of the plaint and documents to the defendants, a