1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT

JAIPUR BENCH, JAIPUR

O R D E R

S.B. CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.19638/2012

Mulakraj s/o Luxman deceased through legal heirs-

1.

Smt. Sheela Devi w/o Mulakraj

2.

Basant Kumar

3.

Balwant

4.

Kulwant (Deceased)

4/1 Smt. Neelam Devi wife of Balwant, Aged 35

years

4/2 Harish son of Balwant, aged 12 years

4/3 Sahil son of Balwant, aged 7 years

4/4 Maansi daughter of Balwant 10 years

All s/o Mulakraj R/o Chikani tehsil & Distt. Alwar

5.

Popa @ Urmila w/o Mehngaraj D/o Mulakraj, R/o

Tehnoli,Tehsil-Krishangarh Bas, Distt. Alwar

6.

Banto Devi w/oJarsi @ Jaswant D/o Mulakraj, R/o

Tehnoli, tehsil Kishangarh Bas, Distt. Alwar

7.

Smt. Asha Devi w/o Neempal D/o Mulakraj, R/o

Kalgaon.

Tehsil Tijara at present Ganganagar.

--Petitioners/Defendants

Versus

Devraj @ Deshraj S/o Luxmandas deceased through

legal heris-

1. Balbeer Singh S/o Devraj @ Deshraj R/o Village

Chikani, Tehsil & Distt. Alwar.

--Respondent/Plantiff

2. State of Rajasthan through Tehsildar, Alwar

3. Board of Revenue, Rajasthan, Ajmer Through its

Registrar.

4. Revenue Appellate Authority, Alwar

5.Sub Division Officer, Alwar.

--Respondents

Date of Order: 02.09.2016

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VEERENDR SINGH SIRADHANA

Mr. M.I. Khan, for the petitioners.

Mr. P.S. Sirohi, for the respondents.

****

In I.A. No.40235/2012:

The matter comes up on an interim application

(40235/2012) under Order 22 Rule 3 CPC, with a prayer to

2

take on record the legal heirs of petitioner No.4-Kulwant.

Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that

pending the proceedings, while the judgment was reserved

before the Board of Revenue, Ajmer, Rajasthan; the

petitioner No.4-Kulwant S/o Mulakraj, died on 14^th

September, 2012, and therefore, the petitioners filed an

application alongwith the writ application, with a prayer to

take on record the legal representatives of petitioner No.4-

Kulwant.

For the reasons assigned in the application and upon

hearing the learned counsel for the parties so also taking note

of the fact that the prayer is not opposed by the counsel for

the respondents as well as having regard to the nature of

controversy involved herein; the application merits

acceptance.

Consequently, the application (40235/2012) is hereby

allowed.

Ameded cause title, enclosed with the application

(40235/2012), shall be taken on record and arranged at the

appropriate place in the record of the case file.

In I.A.No.29613/2016:

The matter comes up on an interim application

(29613/2016) under Article 226(3) of the Constitution of

India, with a prayer for vacation of the ex-parte interim order

dated 29^th January, 2013.

Heard the learned counsel for the parties.

3

Indisputably, the suit instituted by the plaintiff-

respondent No.1, before the Sub Divisional Officer, Alwar,

was being contested by the parties. Issues were framed on

15^th June ,1999. It is also not disputed that the plaintiff-

respondent No. 1 filed the affidavits of his witnesses, he

intended to produce in support of his claim, along with his

affidavit, in evidence.

While the matter was due for further proceedings for

cross-examination, the Sub Divisional Officer, Alwar, made

the order dated 24^th January, 2007, without recording

evidence of the parties on the affidavits and affording an

opportunity to the petitioners to lead evidence.

On an appeal, the Revenue Appellate Authority, Alwar,

affirmed the order dated 24^th January, 2007, declining the

appeal on 2^nd July, 2008. The Board of Revenue, Ajmer, also

declined interference. It is, thus, the matter has spiraled up

to this Court in the instant writ application.

For there was no opportunity allowed to the petitioners

to cross-examine the plaintiff-respondent as well as his

witnesses; therefore, the petitioners have raised a serious

grievance