Basedi, District Dholpur (Raj.) v. Board Of Revenue, Through Registrar, District Ajmer

1/4. Rajendra Singh S/o Shri Chhitaria Singh, (Since Deceased) (Legal Heirs) 1/4/ Sudha W/o Late Shri Rajendra Singh, R/o Banara, Tehsil

1. Basedi, District Dholpur (Raj.) 1/4/ Dilip Singh S/o Late Shri Rajendra Singh, R/o Banara,

2. Tehsil Basedi, District Dholpur (Raj.) 1/4/ Mona D/o Late Shri Rajendra Singh, R/o Banara, Tehsil

3. Basedi, District Dholpur (Raj.) 1/4/ Raveena D/o Late Shri Rajendra Singh, R/o Banara, Tehsil

4. Basedi, District Dholpur (Raj.) 1/4/ Gauri D/o Late Shri Rajendra Singh, R/o Banara, Tehsil

5. Basedi, District Dholpur (Raj.) 1/4/ Kirti D/o Late Shri Rajendra Singh, R/o Banara, Tehsil

6. Basedi, District Dholpur (Raj.) ----Petitioners Versus

1. Board Of Revenue, Through Registrar, District Ajmer (Raj.)

2. Revenue Appellate Authority With Revenue Appellate Tribunal, Bharatpur, Camp Dholpur (Raj.)

3. The State Of Rajasthan, Through Sub-Divisional Officer/ Assistant Collector, Dholpur, District Dholpur (Raj.)

4. Tehsildar Basedi, District Dholpur (Raj.) ----Respondents [2025:RJ-JP:19274] (2 of 6) [CW-10591/2019] For Petitioner(s) : Dr. Abhinav Sharma with Mr. Akshaya Varma For Respondent(s) : Ms. Gunjan Chawla Mr. Harshit Parashar & Ms. Priyamda Singh for Mr. Neeraj Batra, GC JUSTICE ANOOP KUMAR DHAND Order 07/05/2025

1. By way of filing this writ petition, a challenge has been led to the impugned order dated 28.07.2017 passed by the Board of Revenue (hereinafter referred to as “the Board”) by which the appeal filed by the father of the petitioner Nos.1/1 to 1/4 has been rejected as abated on non-substitution of Legal Representatives within the period of limitation.

2. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the father of the petitioner Nos.1/1 to 1/4 submitted an appeal against the impugned order dated 20.01.2005 passed by the Revenue Appellate Authority (RAA) before the Board in the year 2005 and the appeal remained pending for adjudication and during pendency of the said appeal, the appellant-Chhitaria Singh expired on 21.12.2007. Learned counsel submits that the legal representatives of the appellant-Chhitaria Singh were not aware about the pendency of the said appeal and they got the knowledge of the instant appeal from the lawyer of their father-Chhitaria Singh at bleated stage and, immediately thereafter, an application under Order 22 Rule 3 and 9 CPC along-with an application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act was submitted for their substitution on the record and for setting aside the abatement of suit, if any. [2025:RJ-JP:19274] (3 of 6) [CW-10591/2019]

3. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the aforesaid application submitted by the petitioners has been rejected on the ground that the same was filed after a delay of 9 years. Learned counsel submits that the delay was not intentional rather the same was bonafide on account of non-awareness about the pendency of appeal preferred by their deceased father. Learned counsel submits that in such like matters instead of abating the appeal, it could have been decided on its merits.

4. In support of his submissions, learned counsel for the petitioners has placed reliance upon the following judgments in the case of:- (1) Bhagwan Swaroop & Others Vs. Mool Chand & Others reported in AIR 1983 SC 355; (2) Sital Prasad Saxena (dead) by Lrs Vs. Union of India & others reported in AIR 1985 SC 1; (3) Ram Nath Sao alias Ram Nath Sahu & others Vs. Gobardhan Sao & Others reported in AIR 2002 SC 1201 and; (4) Asharfi & Others Vs. Jaipal Singh & Others while deciding Civil Appeal No.1096/1980 decided on 05.05.1980.

5. In view of the submissions made hereinabove, learned counsel prays that the impugned order dated 28.07.2017 be quashed and set-aside and the matter be remitted to the Board for disposal of the appeal on its merits after substituting the Legal Representatives of the deceased-appellant-Chhitaria Singh, on the record.

6. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondents opposed the arguments raised by learned counsel for the petitioners and submits that the appellant-Chhitaria Singh expired on 21.12.2007 [2025:RJ-JP:19274] (4 of 6) [CW-10591/2019] while the application for substitution under Order 22 Rule 3 & 9 CPC was submitted on 13.10.2016, i.e., after a delay of nine years and the reason for delay was not explained by the petitioners, hence, the Board has not committed any error in passing the order impugned and treating the aforesaid appeal as abated.

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

8. This fact is not in dispute that the appellant-Chhitaria Singh preferred an appeal before the Board against the judgment dated

20.01.2005 passed by RAA. This fact is also not in dispute that the appellant-Chhitaria Singh expired on 21.12.2007. The fact of his death was not brought on the record by the respondents by way of filing an application under Order 22 Rule 10A CPC, hence, the appeal remained pending for its adjudication on its merits till the date when the petitioners submitted an application under Order 22 Rule 3 & 9 CPC along-with an application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act. It is the case of the petitioners that they were not aware about the pendency of the aforesaid appeal preferred by their father before the Board and they came to know about the aforesaid fact in the year 2016 and, immediately thereafter, the application for their substitution was submitted along-with the prayer for setting aside the abatement of suit, if any. It is true that application has been filed after a delay but the reason for delay has been explained by the petitioners, which has been overlooked by the Board while passing the impugned order.

9. The Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Bhagwan Swaroop (supra) has dealt with the identical situation in Para 5, which reads as follows:- [2025:RJ-JP:19274] (5 of 6) [CW-10591/2019] “5. In a suit for partition, the position of plaintiffs and defendants can be interchangeable. It is that each adopts the same position with the other parties. Other features which must be noticed are that the appeal was filed somewhere in 1972. It had not come up for hearing and the matter came on Board only upon the application of the second respondent intimating to the Court that the 1st respondent had died way back and as his heirs and legal representatives having not been substituted, the appeal has abated. Wheels started moving thereafter. Appellants moved an application for substitution. The matter did not end there. Heirs of deceased respondent No. 1 then moved an application for being brought on record. If the application had been granted, the appeal could have been disposed of in the presence of all the parties. The difficulty High Court experienced in granting the application disclosed with great respect, a hyper- technical approach which if carried to end may result in miscarriage of justice. Who could have made the most serious grievance about the failure of the appellants to substitute the heirs and legal representatives of deceased respondent No. 1. Obviously the heirs of deceased respondent No. 1 were the persons vitally interested in the outcome of the appeal. They could have contended that the appeal against them has abated and their share has become unassailable. That is not their case. They on the contrary, want to be impleaded and substituted as heirs and legal representatives of deceased respondent No. 1. They had absolutely no grievance about the delay in bringing them on record. It is the second respondent who is fighting both the appellants and the 1st respondent who wants to derive a technical advantage by this procedural lapse. If the trend is to encourage fair play in action in administrative law, it must all the more inhere in judicial approach. Such applications have to be approached with this view whether substantial justice is done between the parties or technical rules of procedure are given precedence over doing substantial justice in Court. Undoubtedly, justice according law; law to be administered to advance justice. [2025:RJ-JP:19274] (6 of 6) [CW-10591/2019]

10. Considering the overall facts and circumstances of the case, this Court is of the view that the delay in filing the application for substitution was justified. The Board instead of rejecting the appeal by treating the same as abated could have decide the appeal on its merits after substituting the petitioners on the record.

11. In view of above, the writ petition stands disposed of. The impugned order dated 28.07.2017 stands quashed and set-aside. The application filed by the petitioners under Order 22 Rule 3 & 9 CPC stands allowed. The matter is remitted to the Board for disposal of the appeal on its merits.

12. It is needless to observe that the Board would make all possible endeavours to decide the appeal expeditiously as early as possible preferably within a period of one year from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order looking to the fact that the appeal remained pending for adjudication before the Board since

13. Stay application as well as all applications (pending, if any) also stand disposed of. Karan/81 (ANOOP KUMAR DHAND),J