Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur
Satyanarayan vs The State Of Rajasthan ... on 10 February, 2026
[2026:RJ-JD:8007]
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
JODHPUR
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 18655/2023
1. Satyanarayan S/o Late Gopiram, Aged About 64 Years, By
Caste Mahajan (Maheshwari Soni), Resident Of Ward No.8
A, Rawatsar, Tehsil Rawatsar, District Hanumangarh,
Rajasthan.
2. Tarachand S/o Late Gopiram, Aged About 72 Years, By
Caste Mahajan (Maheshwari Soni), Resident Of Dhigawali,
Tehsil Abohar, District Fajilka, Punjab.
3. Ramkumar S/o Late Gopiram, Aged About 61 Years, By
Caste Mahajan (Maheshwari Soni), Resident Of Dhigawali,
Tehsil Abohar, District Fajilka, Punjab.
----Petitioners
Versus
1. The State Of Rajasthan, Through The Secretary,
Department Of Revenue, Secretariat, Jaipur, Rajasthan.
2. Smt. Durga Devi W/o Late Laxminarayan, Aged About 86
Years, By Caste Mahajan (Maheshwari Soni), Resident Of
Ward No.12, Sadulshahar, Tehsil Sadulshahar, District Sri
Ganganagar, Rajasthan.
3. Krishan Lal S/o Late Laxminarayan, Aged About 52 Years,
By Caste Mahajan (Maheshwari Soni), Resident Of Ward
No.12, Sadulshahar, Tehsil Sadulshahar, District Sri
Ganganagar, Rajasthan.
4. Smt. Shanti Devi W/o Late Khayaliram, Aged About 71
Years, By Caste Mahajan (Maheshwari Soni), Resident Of
Ward No.12, Sadulshahar, Tehsil Sadulshahar, District Sri
Ganganagar, Rajasthan.
5. Jagdish S/o Late Khayaliram, Aged About 56 Years, By
Caste Mahajan (Maheshwari Soni), Resident Of Ward
No.12, Sadulshahar, Tehsil Sadulshahar, District Sri
Ganganagar, Rajasthan.
6. Ramkumar S/o Late Khayaliram, Aged About 51 Years, By
Caste Mahajan (Maheshwari Soni), Resident Of Ward
No.12, Sadulshahar, Tehsil Sadulshahar, District Sri
Ganganagar, Rajasthan.
7. Harikesh S/o Late Khayaliram, Aged About 44 Years, By
Caste Mahajan (Maheshwari Soni), Resident Of Ward
No.12, Sadulshahar, Tehsil Sadulshahar, District Sri
Ganganagar, Rajasthan.
8. Smt. Sushila Devi W/o Late Bhanwar Lal, Aged About 71
Years, By Caste Mahajan (Maheshwari Soni), Resident Of
Ward No.12, Sadulshahar, Tehsil Sadulshahar, District Sri
Ganganagar, Rajasthan.
(Uploaded on 18/02/2026 at 10:46:41 AM)
(Downloaded on 27/02/2026 at 09:05:13 PM)
[2026:RJ-JD:8007] (2 of 9) [CW-18655/2023]
9. Vinay Kumar S/o Late Bhanwar Lal, Aged About 51 Years,
By Caste Mahajan (Maheshwari Soni), Resident Of Ward
No.12, Sadulshahar, Tehsil Sadulshahar, District Sri
Ganganagar, Rajasthan.
10. Revanatram @ Revanatlal S/o Late Hukamchand, Aged
About 70 Years, By Caste Mahajan (Maheshwari Soni),
Resident Of Ward No.12, Sadulshahar, Tehsil Sadulshahar,
District Sri Ganganagar, Rajasthan.
11. Smt. Saroj Devi W/o Late Indar Lal, Aged About 60 Years,
By Caste Mahajan (Maheshwari Soni), Resident Of Ward
No.12, Sadulshahar, Tehsil Sadulshahar, District Sri
Ganganagar, Rajasthan.
12. Smt. Pooja D/o Late Indar Lal W/o Sunil Kumar, Aged
About 32 Years, By Caste Mahajan (Maheshwari Soni),
Resident Of Nohar, Tehsil Nohar, District Hanumangarh,
Rajasthan.
13. Smt. Aarti D/o Late Indar Lal W/o Dipak Kumar, Aged
About 29 Years, By Caste Mahajan (Maheshwari Soni),
Resident Of Hanumangarh Tawan, Tehsil/ District
Hanumangarh, Rajasthan.
14. Smt. Jashoda W/o Bhanwar Lal, By Caste Mahajan
(Maheshwari Soni), Resident Of Hanumangarh Tawan, Old
Post Office Ki Gali, Jandip Agarwal Dharmsala,
Hanumangarh Tawan, Tehsil/ District Hanumangarh,
Rajasthan.
15. Bhanwar Lal S/o Kunji Lal, By Caste Mahajan
(Maheshwari Soni), Resident Of Hanumangarh Tawan, Old
Post Office Ki Gali, Jandip Agarwal Dharmsala,
Hanumangarh Tawan, Tehsil/ District Hanumangarh,
Rajasthan.
16. State Bank Of Bikaner And Jaipur (Adb), Hanumangarh
Tawan, Tehsil/ District Hanumangarh Through Branch
Manager.
17. Tehsildar (Revenue), Tibbi, Tehsil- Tibbi, District
Hanumangarh.
----Respondents
For Petitioner(s) : Mr.Manoj Purohit
For Respondent(s) : Mr. Dron Kaushik
Mr. Sushil Bishnoi
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJEET PUROHIT
Judgment (Uploaded on 18/02/2026 at 10:46:41 AM) (Downloaded on 27/02/2026 at 09:05:13 PM) [2026:RJ-JD:8007] (3 of 9) [CW-18655/2023] 10/02/2026
1. Present writ petition has been filed challenging order dated 02.03.2016 passed by learned Revenue Appellate Authority (RAA), Hanumangarh, whereby application filed by private respondents under Section 5 of the Limitation Act was allowed and delay in filing appeal against judgment and decree dated 20.01.2004 (as amended on 02.04.2004), passed in favour of plaintiff-petitioners, was condoned. Petitioners have further assailed order dated 29.09.2023 passed by learned Board of Revenue (BoR), whereby revision petition preferred on behalf of petitioners was dismissed.
2. Explaining background facts which gave rise to present writ petition, learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that petitioners had instituted a suit seeking a decree of declaration against defendants, namely Bhawarlal, Laxminarayan, Khayaliram, Rewantram, and Inder, and wherein Learned Court of Additional Collector, Tibbi, District Hanumangarh proceeded ex-parte against defendants as they failed to appear despite service of summons effected through publication in a newspaper. Vide judgment and decree dated 20.01.2004, learned Additional Collector, Tibbi declared petitioner-plaintiffs as khatedars of the land in question and directed deletion of names of defendants to the extent of their one-third share in land in question.
2.1 Learned counsel for petitioners submits that aforesaid judgment and decree dated 20.01.2004 was challenged by respondents-defendants after a lapse of nearly ten years by way of filing an appeal before learned RAA along with an application (Uploaded on 18/02/2026 at 10:46:41 AM) (Downloaded on 27/02/2026 at 09:05:13 PM) [2026:RJ-JD:8007] (4 of 9) [CW-18655/2023] under Section 5 of the Limitation Act seeking condonation of delay. Learned RAA, Hanumangarh, vide its order dated 02.03.2016, by allowing said application condoned the delay. 2.2 Said order dated 02.03.2016 was challenged by petitioners by way of a revision petition before learned BoR, which came to be dismissed vide order dated 29.09.2023.
2.3 Aggrieved thereby, petitioners have preferred present writ petition challenging orders dated 02.03.2016 and 29.09.2023.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioners argued that order dated 02.03.2016 passed by learned RAA allowing the application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act is ex facie erroneous and contrary to settled legal position as well as the facts on record. It was submitted that respondents were duly served through publication in a newspaper, therefore, no illegality was committed by learned Trial Court in passing ex parte judgment dated 20.01.2004. Learned counsel contended that once summons/notices were held to have been duly served, no sufficient cause existed for condoning the delay in filing appeal.
3.1 Learned counsel also submitted that the appeal was filed after a delay of about ten years, and, considering that the parties belong to the same family, it cannot be presumed that respondents were unaware of judgment and decree dated 20.01.2004. However, said aspect has not been considered by learned RAA.
3.2 Learned counsel for petitioners also argued that condoning such gross delay is a case of misplaced sympathy, more so considering the fact that respondents failed to remain present (Uploaded on 18/02/2026 at 10:46:41 AM) (Downloaded on 27/02/2026 at 09:05:13 PM) [2026:RJ-JD:8007] (5 of 9) [CW-18655/2023] before learned Trial Court despite of being duly served. It is stated that learned BoR dismissed the revision petition in a cursory manner without properly considering the grounds raised therein. 3.3 Counsel for the petitioners prayed for quashing of impugned orders are ex facie perverse and unsustainable in the eyes of law.
4. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondents supported the impugned orders and submitted that learned RAA has duly considered entire factual matrix of the case in its proper chronology and recorded a categorical finding that summons were issued at an incorrect address and thus the respondents were having no knowledge of the judgment and decree being passed ex parte.
4.1 It is stated that as a matter of fact, suit itself had been filed against deceased persons, namely Late Laxminarayan and Late Khayaliram, and said fact was very much within the knowledge of plaintiff-petitioners being the cousin brothers. It is further stated that summons were issued in the names of deceased persons, that too, at an incorrect address, and even the publication of summons was done in a different locality than the usual residence of defendants. It is thus, stated that service was wrongly presumed/found established by learned Trial Court, and thus, ex parte decree was wrongly passed by learned Trial Court. 4.2 Learned Counsel submitted that since valid service of summons was not effected and the ex parte decree so passed was not within the knowledge of legal representatives of Late Laxminarayan and Late Khayaliram, therefore, reasons stated in application for condonation of delay constituted sufficient cause. It (Uploaded on 18/02/2026 at 10:46:41 AM) (Downloaded on 27/02/2026 at 09:05:13 PM) [2026:RJ-JD:8007] (6 of 9) [CW-18655/2023] was further contended that law is well settled that where an ex parte decree is under challenge, appellate authority ought to adopt a liberal and lenient approach so that the matter may be decided on merits after affording adequate opportunity of hearing and defence to both parties.
5. Heard counsel for the parties and have perused the material available on record.
6. Upon perusal of impugned order dated 02.03.2016, this Court finds that learned RAA has assigned detailed and cogent reasons while allowing the application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act and condoning the delay in filing appeal. It has specifically been noticed that in the suit proceedings, Late Laxminarayan and Late Khayaliram were impleaded as defendants despite the fact that they had already expired prior to institution of the suit.
7. It is not disputed that the parties belong to the same family. In such circumstances, it cannot reasonably be presumed that plaintiff-petitioners were unaware of the demise of said defendants. Despite this, summons were issued in the names of deceased persons and at an incorrect address, and publication of summons was effected in a different locality.
8. Taking note of these aspects, learned RAA concluded that sufficient cause had been shown for condonation of delay and accordingly exercised its discretion in favour of the respondents.
9. Aforesaid factual aspects were not disputed by learned counsel for petitioners. However, it was contended that parties being members of the same family, judgment and decree must (Uploaded on 18/02/2026 at 10:46:41 AM) (Downloaded on 27/02/2026 at 09:05:13 PM) [2026:RJ-JD:8007] (7 of 9) [CW-18655/2023] have been within the knowledge of respondents. Except for such presumptive assertions, no cogent material or documentary evidence has been placed on record on behalf of petitioners to establish that respondents had actual knowledge of the said judgment and decree. This Court, therefore, finds that no illegality has been committed by learned RAA in condoning delay so as to provide an opportunity to respondents to defend their case by way of appeal against an ex parte judgment and decree.
10. The law is well settled that a litigant should not ordinarily be denied an opportunity to contest the matter on merits merely on account of delay, unless it is shown that the delay was deliberate, mala fide, or that the opposite party has suffered irreparable prejudice. Procedural provisions are intended to advance the cause of justice and not to thwart it. Courts are required to adopt a pragmatic and justice-oriented approach while dealing with applications for condonation of delay, particularly when bona fide reasons are demonstrated.
12. The Hon'ble Apex Court in Collector, Land Acquisition, Anantnag v. Mst. Katiji and others, 1987 (1) L.L.J. 500 observed that Courts should adopt a liberal approach while considering applications under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963. Relevant paragraph is reproduced herein below:
"Refusing to condone delay can result in a meritorious matter being thrown out at the very threshold and cause of justice being defeated. As against this when delay is condoned the highest that can happen is that a cause would be decided on merits after hearing the parties."
13. This Hon'ble High Court, in S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 12882/2024 titled Arjun Lal & Ors. v Rameshwar Prasad & (Uploaded on 18/02/2026 at 10:46:41 AM) (Downloaded on 27/02/2026 at 09:05:13 PM) [2026:RJ-JD:8007] (8 of 9) [CW-18655/2023] Ors., has similarly observed that discretion exercised by the Court below in condoning delay is to be respected, unless it is shown that same has been exercised arbitrarily or perversely. Relevant paragraph is reproduced herein below:
"8. In the opinion of this Court, the reasons of delay were well explained in the application under Order 9 Rule 13 CPC and thereafter, the application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act was also submitted for condonation of delay. Hence, the application under Order 9 Rule 13 CPC was not defective. The deficiency pointed out by the respondents was cured by the petitioner, immediately after filing the application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act. The delay was hardly of six days and the same was explained by the petitioners which was accepted and delay was condoned by the Assistant Collector and ex-parte order and decree were set-aside. It is the settled proposition of law that the superior Court should not disturb such finding, unless the exercise of discretion by the Trial Court was on wholly untenable grounds or arbitrary or perverse. The primary function of the Court is to adjudicate the dispute between the parties and advance the substantial justice. Rules of limitation are not meant to destroy the rights of the parties. They are meant to see that the parties do not resort to dilatory tactics, but seek their remedy promptly. The object of providing a legal remedy is to repair the damage caused by reason of legal injury. The law of limitation fixes a lifespan for such legal remedy for the redressed of the legal injury so suffered."
14. Learned Revisional Court has taken note of all the aforementioned factual aspects and after considering settled legal position regarding scope of revisional jurisdiction, observed that learned RAA had rightly exercised its discretionary jurisdiction, requires no interference. This Court finds that, in the given circumstances, learned BoA has rightly dismissed the revision petition filed by petitioners.
15. It is trite law that the power of superintendence vested in High Courts under Article 227 of the Constitution of India must be (Uploaded on 18/02/2026 at 10:46:41 AM) (Downloaded on 27/02/2026 at 09:05:13 PM) [2026:RJ-JD:8007] (9 of 9) [CW-18655/2023] exercised most sparingly and only in appropriate cases to keep subordinate courts and tribunals within the bounds of their authority. The High Court does not assume the role of an appellate forum, re-appreciating evidence or substituting its view for that of the inferior court, but confines interference to instances of patent perversity, grave dereliction of duty, and flagrant abuse of fundamental principles of law or justice, or jurisdictional overreach occasioning manifest injustice. Burdening this judgment with copious quotes from various such authoritative precedents such as Waryam Singh v. Amarnath (1954) 1 SCC 51, Shalini Shyamsunder Shetty v. Rajendra Shankar Patil (2010) 8 SCC 329, Garment Craft v. Prakash Chand Goel, (2022) 4 SCC 181 would be futile, as the settled jurisprudential position is beyond cavil.
16. This Court finds no manifest illegality, jurisdictional error, perversity, or any error apparent on the fact of record in the concurrent findings recorded in orders dated 02.03.2016 and 29.09.2023, which may warrant interference of this Court.
17. Consequently, present writ petition, being devoid of any merit, is hereby dismissed.
18. Stay application and all pending applications, if any, also stand disposed of.
(SANJEET PUROHIT),J 152-praveen/-
(Uploaded on 18/02/2026 at 10:46:41 AM) (Downloaded on 27/02/2026 at 09:05:13 PM) Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)