[2025:RJ-JP:16111] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.5171/2025 Mahaveer Singh Son Of Sohan Singh, Aged About 43 Years, Resident Of Chhaparwada, Tehsil Mojamabad, District Jaipur (Raj.) ----Petitioner Versus 1. Ghasi Singh Son Of Shri Chhaju Singh, Resident Of Bhatto Ki Gali (Raipura) Amer, Tehsil Amer, District Jaipur. 2. Gopal Singh Son Of Shri Chhaju Singh, Resident Of Bhatto Ki Gali (Raipura) Amer, Tehsil Amer, District Jaipur. 3. State Of Rajasthan, Through Learned Tehsildar, Mojmabad, District Jaipur. ----Respondents For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Vinod Kumar Sharma For Respondent(s) : Mr. Prahlad Sharma JUSTICE ANOOP KUMAR DHAND Order 15/04/2025 1. The instant writ petition has been preferred against the impugned orders dated 17.02.2025 and 18.03.2025 passed by Revenue Appellate Authority and Board of Revenue respectively. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that in a suit filed by the petitioner, an interim order was passed by the Court of Sub-Divisional Magistrate on 19.12.2005 by which the respondents were directed to not to sale/alienate the property in question. Learned counsel submits that after a delay of more than 20 years, the aforesaid order was assailed by the respondents before the Revenue Appellate Authority by way of filing an appeal along-with an application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, [2025:RJ-JP:16111] (2 of 3) [CW-5171/2025] 1963 (hereinafter referred to as “the Act of 1963”) for condoning the delay. Learned counsel submits that without deciding the application filed under Section 5 of the Act of 1963 and without condoning the delay, an interim order was passed on 17.02.2025 by which the effect and operation of the order dated 19.12.2005 was stayed and, thereafter, the respondents have sold the property in question. Learned counsel submits that an interim order cannot be passed in a time barred appeal without condoning the delay, hence under these circumstances, interference of this Court is warranted. 3. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondents opposed the arguments raised by learned counsel for the petitioner and submitted that this writ petition has become infructuous in light of the subsequent developments which have taken place in between. Learned counsel submits that the appeal preferred by the respondents against the interim order dated 19.12.2005 has already been decided by the Revenue Appellate Authority and the matter has been remitted to the Sub-Divisional Magistrate to decide the said application within a period of 30 days and the parties have been directed to maintain status-quo. Learned counsel submits that, under the changed circumstances, no further cause of action survives with the petitioner to continue with this petition and the same is liable to be rendered infructuous. 4. Heard and considered the submissions made at Bar and perused the material available on the record. [2025:RJ-JP:16111] (3 of 3) [CW-5171/2025] 5. Considering the arguments put forward by learned counsel for the respondents and looking to the fact that the matter has already been remitted to the Sub-Divisional Magistrate to decide the application within a period of 30 days and the parties have been directed to maintain status quo, this Court does not deem it just and proper to interfere with the present matter. 6. In view of above, the instant writ petition stands disposed of in light of the submissions made by the counsel for the respondents. Stay application as well as all applications (pending, if any) also stand disposed of. (ANOOP KUMAR DHAND),J Karan/205