All R/o Chowkadi Gangapole, Rawal Ji Ka Gher, Jaipur v. Govind Ram S/o Balaji, Swami Ramawat, R/o Jaipur

1/1/6. Smt. Sunita Pawar D/o Late Shri Ganesh Narain And W/o Shri Vikas Pawar, R/o House No. 10, Shiv Shakti Vihar, Near Bans Factory, Murlipura Machera, Jaipur 1/2. Gordhan Lal S/o Gopal 1/3. Shanti Devi D/o Gopal (expired during the pendency of revision petition through his legal representatives) 1/3/1. Prahlad Sain S/o Late Shri Bhanwar Lal Sain 1/3/2. Rambabu Sain S/o Late Shri Bhanwar Lal Sain 1/3/3. Bhupendra Sain S/o Late Shri Bhanwar Lal Sain 1/3/4. Geeta W/o Nemchand Sain And D/o Late Shri Bhanwar Lal Sain 1/3/5. Nathulal Sain Husband Of Late Paro D/o Late Shri Bhanwar Lal Sain 1/3/6. Deepak Sain S/o Nathulal Sain All R/o 177, Vishwakama Colony, Sector No. 6,62 Harijan Basti, Shastri Nagar, Jaipur (Rajasthan) 1/3/7. Chand Devi W/o Puran Mal Sain D/o Late Shri Bhanwar Lal Sain, R/o 27, Khandelwal Colony, Goner Road, Looniyawas, Jaipur-302031 1/4. Ganga Devi D/o Gopal 1/5. Prem Devi D/o Gopal All R/o Chowkadi Gangapole, Rawal Ji Ka Gher, Jaipur ----Petitioners [2025:RJ-JP:16402] (2 of 5) [CR-120/2019] Versus

1. Govind Ram S/o Balaji, Swami Ramawat, R/o Jaipur Pujari Mandir Shri Gopal Ji Of Samod House, Rawal Ji Ka Gher, Chowkadi Gangapole, Jaipur, Rajasthan, Deceased Thrugh Legal Representatives 1/1. Smt. Durga Devi @ Munni Bai W/o Late Shri Govind Ram 1/2. Uma Sharma S/o Late Shri Govind Ram, (Expired During The Pendency Of Revision Petition Through His Legal Representatives). 1/2/1. Smt. Sunita Sharma Wife Of Late Shri Uma Sharma @ Uma Shankar 1/2/2. Lokesh Swami Son Of Late Shri Uma Sharma @ Uma Shankar 1/2/3. Neha Swami Daughter Of Late Shri Uma Sharma @ Uma Shankar 1/2/4. Ranu Swami Son Of Late Shri Uma Sharma @ Uma Shankar, All R/o Mandir Shri Gopal Ji Of Samod House, Rawal Ji Ka Gher, Chowkadi Gangapole, Jaipur, Rajasthan. 1/3. Jata Shankar @ Jai Shankar, S/o Late Shri Govind Ram 1/4. Gauri Shankar, S/o Late Shri Govind Ram 1/5. Bhawani Shankar, S/o Late Shri Govind Ram 1/6. Smt. Vijay Devi W/o Shri Radhey Shyam Sharma, aged 55 years, D/o Late Shri Govind Ram (expired during the pendency of revision petition through his legal representatives) 1/6/1. Shri Radhey Shyam Sharma Husband of late Smt. Vijay Devi @ Smt. Vijay Laxmi Sharma 1/6/2. Ashok Son of Shri Radhey Shyam Sharma 1/6/3. Kailash S/o Shri Radhey Shyam Sharma 1/6/4. Harish S/o Shri Radhey Shyam Sharma 1/6/5. Gopal S/o Shri Radhey Shyam Sharma 1/6/6. Prakash S/o Shri Radhey Sharma All R/o Near Ganesh Mandir, Lal Doongari, Jaipur, Rajasthan 1/7. Smt. Ganga W/o Late Shri Prakash Sharma, Aged 52 years D/o Late Shri Govind Ram [2025:RJ-JP:16402] (3 of 5) [CR-120/2019] 1/8. Smt. Suman Devi W/o Unknown, D/o Late Shri Govind Ram All R/o Mandir Shri Gopal Ji Of Samod House, Rawal Ji Ka Gher, Chowkadi Gangapole, Jaipur, Rajasthan

4. Radhey Shyam S/o Gopal Vishnu Devi D/o Gopal Bhonri Devi W/o Gopal All Expired During The Pendency Of Appeal, By Caste Nevagi, R/o Chowkadi Gangapole, Rawal Ji Gher, Jaipur ----Respondents For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Parag Rastogi, Adv. For Respondent(s) : Mr. Ram Manohar Sharma, Adv. HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE NARENDRA SINGH DHADDHA 17/04/2025 Order This civil revision petition has been filed plaintiff-appellant- petitioner (for short ‘the plaintiff’) under Section 115 read with Order 41 of CPC against the order dated 05.02.2019 passed by Additional District Judge No. 4, Jaipur Metropolitan, Jaipur (for short ‘the appellate Court’) in civil regular appeal No. 06/1995 titled as “Gopal Vs. Govind Ram” whereby the appellate Court while allowing the application filed by the respondent-defendant (for short ‘the defendant’) under Order 6 Rule 18 of the CPC dismissed the appeal which was preferred against the judgment and decree dated 26.11.1994 passed by Additional Civil Judge (Junior Division) & Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Jaipur City (East), Jaipur (for short ‘the trial Court’) in civil suit No. 249/1985 (270/1975), by which trial Court dismissed the suit filed by the plaintiff. [2025:RJ-JP:16402] (4 of 5) [CR-120/2019] Learned counsel for the plaintiff submits that plaintiff filed a civil suit for permanent injunction against the defendant. The said suit filed by the plaintiff was dismissed by the trial Court vide judgment and decree dated 26.11.1994. Being aggrieved with the judgment and decree dated 26.11.1994, the plaintiff preferred an appeal before the appellate Court, which was registered as civil regular appeal No. 06/95. In the said appeal, plaintiff filed an application under Order 22 Rule 4 CPC and the same was allowed vide order dated 27.03.2017. After that, plaintiff filed amended cause title on 03.04.2017 but due to change of counsel, amended cause title could not be placed on record. Legal heirs of deceased defendant filed an application under Order 6 Rule 18 read with Section 151 CPC for dismissal of appeal on account of non- compliance of the order dated 27.03.2017. The appellate Court vide order dated 05.02.2019 allowed the application and dismissed the appeal accordingly. Learned counsel for the plaintiff also submits that plaintiff had already filed the amended cause title and which is on record. He had also filed the certified copy of the amended cause title with the petition. So, the order dated 05.02.2019 passed by the appellate Court be set aside. Learned counsel for the defendants has opposed the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the plaintiff and submits that appellate Court rightly dismissed the appeal on account of non-compliance of the order dated 27.03.2017. Alternatively, learned counsel for the defendants also submits that if petition filed by the plaintiff is allowed, then appellate Court be directed to decide the appeal within 6 months. [2025:RJ-JP:16402] (5 of 5) [CR-120/2019] I have considered the arguments advanced by learned counsel for the plaintiff as well as learned counsel for the defendants. It is an admitted position that counsel for the plaintiff had filed amended cause title on 03.04.2017, which was available on record. So, the appellate Court had committed an error in dismissing the appeal on account of non-compliance of the order dated 27.03.2017. Therefore, the order dated 05.02.2019 passed by the appellate Court deserves to be set aside. Accordingly, the civil revision petition filed by the plaintiff is allowed. The order dated 05.02.2019 passed by the appellate Court is set aside. The matter is remanded to the appellate Court and the appellate Court is directed to decide the appeal, as expeditiously as possible but not later than six months from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order, in accordance with law. Both the parties are directed to appear before the appellate Court on 01.05.2025. Pending application(s), if any, stand(s) disposed of. Tahir/106 (NARENDRA SINGH DHADDHA),J