[2025:RJ-JP:5836] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 13095/2018 1. 2. Rajendra Prasad S/o Shri Ramdev Singh, aged about 32 Yrs. Resident Of Kheshwa Ki Dhani, Tan Parasrampura, Tehsil Nawalgarh District Jhunjhunu. Permeshwar Lal S/o Shri Ramdev Singh, Aged About 28 Years, Resident Of Kheshwa Ki Dhani, Tan Parasrampura, Tehsil Nawalgarh District Jhunjhunu. 3. Kanhiya Lal Son Of Shri Ramdev Singh, Aged About 15 Years, Through Natural Guardian Ramdev Singh S/o Motu Ram Resident Of Kheshwa Ki Dhani, Tan Parasrampura, Tehsil Nawalgarh District Jhunjhunu. ----Petitioners Versus 1. 1/1. 1/2. 1/3. 1/4. 1/5. 1/6. 1/7. Shri Kurda Ram S/o Shri Bhoma Ram (Deceased) through Successors Mohan Lal S/o Kurda Ram, Aged 50 Years, R/o Beelwa The Nawalgarh District Jhunjhunu Sultan S/o Kurda Ram, Aged About 48 Years, R/o Beelwa The Nawalgarh District Jhunjhunu Mool Chand S/o Kurda Ram, Aged About 45 Years, R/o Beelwa The Nawalgarh District Jhunjhunu Subhash Chand S/o Kurda Ram, Aged About 42 Years, R/o Beelwa The Nawalgarh District Jhunjhunu Jhamkori Devi D/o Kurda Ram W/o Sh Sukhdev, R/o Bhojasar Bada Tehsil Nawalgarh District Jhunjhunu. Jeevli Devi D/o Kurda Ram W/o Shri Ratna Ram, R/o Bhojasar Bada Tehsil Nawalgarh District Jhunjhunu. Chuki Devi D/o Kurda Ram W/o Shri Moti Lal, R/o Badwasi Tehsil Nawalgarh District Jhunjhunu. 2. Banwari, Aged About 45 Years, S/o Shri Ganpat 3. Pyare Lal, Aged About 35 Years, S/o Bhagirath 4. Shyo Lal S/o Shri Rugram, Aged About 36 Years, Resident Of Bilwa, Tan Parasrampura, Tehsil Nawalgarh District Jhunjhunu, Rajasthan. 5. Jhabar Ram S/o Shri Geega Ram, aged about 50 yrs, [2025:RJ-JP:5836] (2 of 4) [CW-13095/2018] Resident Of Kheshwa Ki Dhani, Tan Parasrampura, Tehsil Nawalgarh District Jhunjhunu. 6. State Of Rajasthan, Through Tehsildar Nawalgarh (Land Holder) ----Respondents For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Narendra Singh Yadav For Respondent(s) : Mr. Jay Vardhan Joshi for Mr. Bharat Vyas, AAG HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MAHENDAR KUMAR GOYAL Judgment / Order 10/02/2025 This writ petition is directed against the order dated 20.04.2018 passed by the Board of Revenue, Rajasthan, Ajmer (for brevity “the BoR”) in Revision Petition No.2405/2005 whereby, while allowing the revision petition preferred by the predecessor- in-interest of the respondents No.1/1 to 1/7/plaintiffs (for short “the plaintiff”), the order dated 07.04.2005 passed by the Court of Sub-Divisional Officer, Nawalgarh (hereinafter referred to as “the trial Court”) dismissing an application filed by the plaintiff under Order 26 Rules 9 and 10 CPC, has been set aside. The relevant facts in brief are that the plaintiff filed a suit for declaration, correction of entries, partition and permanent injunction against the petitioners and the proforma respondents No.2 to 6. Therein, he filed an application under Order 26 Rules 9 and 10 CPC seeking appointment of Site Commissioner which was dismissed by the trial Court vide order dated 07.04.2005. The revision petition preferred thereagainst by the plaintiff came to be allowed by the BoR vide order impugned dated 20.04.2018. [2025:RJ-JP:5836] (3 of 4) [CW-13095/2018] Assailing the order, learned counsel for the petitioners contends that the BoR did not appreciate that the plaintiff had filed the application with delay, i.e., after framing of the issues and therefore, was not maintainable. He further submits that the application was quite vague inasmuch as no Khasra number was mentioned therein. He, therefore, prays that the writ petition be allowed, the order impugned dated 20.04.2018 be quashed and set aside and the application filed by the plaintiff be dismissed. Per contra, learned counsel for the plaintiff, supporting the findings recorded by the BoR, prayed for dismissal of the writ petition. Heard. Considered. While accepting the revision petition and allowing the application filed by the plaintiff under Order 26 Rules 9 and 10 CPC, the BoR, appreciating the facts of the case and rival contentions made by the respective parties with regard to their possession over the subject property/its part, held that to elucidate the matter in dispute, appointment of the site commissioner was necessary. Their Lordships have, in the case of Rahul S Shah versus Jitendra Kumar Gandhi & Ors.: Civil Appeal Nos.1659-1660 of 2021 (@ Special Leave to Appeal Nos.7965-7966/2020 decided on 22.04.2021, held that in case of dispute as to the possession over the immovable property, the Court should liberally resort to the appointment of site commissioner to bring the true and correct position before the Court as to exact description/demarcation of the property including the nature and occupation of the property. [2025:RJ-JP:5836] (4 of 4) [CW-13095/2018] In view thereof, this Court finds no reason, under its limited writ jurisdiction, to interfere with the well reasoned order passed by the BoR in exercise of its judicious discretion based on sound legal principles. The submissions made by the learned counsel for the petitioners do not merit acceptance. Order 26 Rule 9, unlike Order 6 Rule 17 CPC, does not circumscribe the right of a party, to move an application qua the stage of the proceeding. Resultantly, this civil writ petition is dismissed being devoid of merit. Pending application(s), if any, also stands disposed of. (MAHENDAR KUMAR GOYAL),J Manish/53