Jaipur Road, PNB Bank Mahwa, District Dausa, Rajasthan v. Kherati Khan S/o Makbul Khan, R/o Village Didwana

Judgment

1. Kherati Khan S/o Makbul Khan, R/o Village Didwana, Tehsil Lalsot, District Dausa, Raj.

2. Babu Khan S/o Makbul Khan (Since Deceased), Through Legal Heir. 2/1 Jetun Begum, Widow Of Late Babu Khan 2/2 Usman, S/o Late Babu Khan 2/3 Akbar, S/o Late Babu Khan 2/4 Mehboob, S/o Late Babu Khan 2/5 Suban, S/o Late Babu Khan 2/6 Irfan, S/o Late Babu Khan 2/7 Salman, S/o Late Babu Khan 2/8 Munni Bano, D/o Late Babu Khan 2/9 Shaban D/o Late Babu Khan, All And Resident Of Village Didwana Tehsil Lalsot, District Dausa.

3. Imamudin S/o Makbul Khan, Deceased Through Legal Heirs 3/1 Eid Mohammed S/o Imamudin, Deceased Through Legal Heirs. 3/1/1 Peer Mohammed, S/o Eid Mohammed 3/1/2 Ashiya, D/o Eid Mohammed 3/1/3. Peeran Bano W/o Eid Mohammed, All R/o Gram Mandawari, Tehsil Lalsot, District Dausa. 3/2. Salim, S/o Imamudin 3/3. Mariyam, D/o Imamudin 3/4. Madina, D/o Imamudin 3/5. Jubeda D/o Imamudin, All R/o Gram Dedwana, Tehsil Lalsot, District Dausa. [2025:RJ-JP:25089] (2 of 6) [CW-7625/2025]

4. State Of Rajasthan Through Tehsildar, Lalsot, District Dausa. ----Respondents Connected With S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 8819/2024

Parveen Begum W/o Late Shri Sardar Mohammed, Aged About 53 Years, R/o Village Didwana Tehsil Lalsot District Dausa Through Power Of Attorney Akram Khan S/o Afzal Khan Age About 25 Years , R/o Jaipur Road Pnb Bank Mahwa District Dausa. ----Petitioner Versus

1. Kherati Khan S/o Makbul Khan, R/o Village Didwana, Tehsil Lalsot, District Dausa, Raj.

2. Babu Khan S/o Makbul Khan (Since Deceased), Through Legal Heir. 2/1 Jetun Begum, Widow Of Late Babu Khan 2/2 Usman, S/o Late Babu Khan 2/3 Akbar, S/o Late Babu Khan 2/4 Mehboob, S/o Late Babu Khan 2/5 Suban, S/o Late Babu Khan 2/6 Irfan, S/o Late Babu Khan 2/7 Salman, S/o Late Babu Khan 2/8 Munni Bano, D/o Late Babu Khan 2/9 Shaban D/o Late Babu Khan, Respondent No.2/1 to 2/9 Resident Of Village Didwana Tehsil Lalsot, District Dausa.

3. Imamudden S/o Makbul Khan, (Since Deceased) Through Legal Heir. 3/1 Eid Mohammed S/o Imamudin, Deceased Through Legal Heirs. 3/1/1 Peer Mohammed, S/o Eid Mohammed 3/1/2 Ashiya, D/o Eid Mohammed 3/1/3. Peeran Bano W/o Eid Mohammed, All R/o Gram Mandawari, Tehsil Lalsot, District Dausa. [2025:RJ-JP:25089] (3 of 6) [CW-7625/2025] 3/2. Salim, S/o Imamudin 3/3. Mariyam, D/o Imamudin 3/4. Madina, D/o Imamudin 3/5. Jubeda D/o Imamudin, All R/o Gram Dedwana, Tehsil Lalsot, District Dausa.

4. State Of Rajasthan, Through Tehsildar, Tehsil Lalsot, District Dousa, Rajasthan. ----Respondents For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Mohit Gupta with Mr. Nikhil Kumawat For Respondent(s) : Mr. Malkhan Chaturvedi JUSTICE ANOOP KUMAR DHAND Order 08/07/2025 S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 8819/2024

1. By way of filing this writ petition, a challenge has been led to the impugned order dated 22.03.2024 passed by the Board of Revenue (for short ‘the Board’), by which the appeal has been rejected preferred by the petitioner against the order dated 24.01.2024 passed by the Revenue Appellate Authority, Lalsot (for short ‘RAA’) as well as the order dated 21.09.2022 passed by the Sub Divisional Officer (for short ‘SDO’), whereby he has allowed the application submitted by the respondent under Section 144 CPC and passed the order to restore the status quo ante of the record and suit prior to the date of passing of ex-parte decree i.e. 29.01.1987.

2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that a suit for declaration and injunction was submitted by the petitioner before the Court of SDO, which was decreed ex-parte vide [2025:RJ-JP:25089] (4 of 6) [CW-7625/2025] order dated 29.01.1987. Counsel submits that a restoration application was submitted by the respondents and the same was allowed vide order dated 09.07.1987 and the suit was restored to its original number. Counsel submits that in the meantime, one more suit was submitted by the petitioner seeking partition against the respondents in 1994 and the same was decreed vide order dated 22.12.1994 and a preliminary decree was passed against the respondents, thereafter, final decree was also passed. Counsel submits that in the meantime, an applicationwas submitted by the respondents under Section 144 CPC seeking restoration of original position prior to filing of the suit i.e. the situation existing prior to 1987. Counsel submits that in the meantime, an injunction application was submitted by the respondents, wherein, an interim order dated 12.01.2022 has been passed directing the parties to maintain status quo. Hence, under these circumstances, the order dated 21.09.2022 is not tenable and is liable to be quashed and set aside.

3. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondents opposed the arguments raised by the counsel for the petitioner and submitted that once the ex-parte decree dated 29.01.1987 has been restored to its original number vide order dated

09.07.1987, on a consent given by the petitioner, under these circumstances, the SDO has not committed any error in entertaining and allowing the application submitted by the respondent under Section 144 CPC directing the petitioner to restore the original position on the site which was prior to the [2025:RJ-JP:25089] (5 of 6) [CW-7625/2025] date of filing of the suit, hence, interference of this Court is not warranted and the petition is liable to be rejected.

4. Heard and considered the submissions made at the Bar and perused the material available on record.

5. Considering the arguments put forward by the learned counsel for the petitioner and looking to the fact that the ex- parte decree dated 29.01.1987 has been quashed and the suit was restored to its original number by a subsequent order dated 09.07.1987, now, the SDO is supposed to hear and decide the suit on its merits, on the basis of the evidence led by both the parties as well as the arguments raised by them.

6. It is worthy to note here that prior to passing of the order dated 21.09.2022 by the SDO, an application was submitted by the petitioner under Section 144 CPC, alongwith an injunction application by none other than the respondents themselves, before the same Court, wherein, an interim order has been passed vide order dated 12.01.2022 directing the parties to maintain status quo on the site as well as the record. Under these circumstances, the subsequent order dated 21.09.2022 passed by the SDO has no meaning.

7. In the considered opinion of this Court, the matter is required to be decided by the SDO on the basis of the evidence led by the both sides, and therefore, this Court deems it just and proper to quash and set aside the impugned order dated

21.09.2022 with directions to the SDO to make all possible endeavours to decide the pending suit expeditiously, as early as possible, preferably within a period of one year from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order. [2025:RJ-JP:25089] (6 of 6) [CW-7625/2025]

8. With the aforesaid observations, the instant writ petition stands disposed of. The stay application and all pending applications, if any, also stand disposed of. S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 7625/2025

9. Since the order dated 21.09.2022 has been set aside by this Court today in S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.8819/2024, therefore, under the changed circumstances, counsel for the petitioner does not want to press the instant writ petition (S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 7625/2025) which is submitted against the order dated 21.04.2025 passed by the Board and accordingly, wants to withdraw the instant writ petition.

10. In view of the submission made, the instant writ petition stands dismissed as withdrawn/not pressed. (ANOOP KUMAR DHAND),J KuD/20&21