[2025:RJ-JP:23770] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. Civil Revision Petition No. 163/2025 Mukti D/o Chhitar W/o Suleman, R/o Thalchana Tehsil Pahadi ----Petitioner Versus 1. Hasan, Aged About 42 Years, R/o Village Thalchana, Tehsil Pahari (Bharatpur) 2. Aajam S/o Sirdar S/o Saltan, Aged About 38 Years, R/o Village Thalchana, Tehsil Pahari (Bharatpur) 3. Dinu S/o Salekha, Aged 0 Years R/o Village Thalchana, Tehsil Pahari (Bharatpur) 4. Nasrudin S/o Nakku S/o Rustam, Aged About 59 Years, R/o Village Thalchana, Tehsil Pahari (Bharatpur) 5. Rahim Khan S/o Fufu Son Of Chavkhan, Aged About 92 Years, R/o Village Thalchana, Tehsil Pahari (Bharatpur) 6. Rizwan S/o Suban Khan, Aged About 26 Years, R/o Village Thalchana, Tehsil Pahari (Bharatpur) 7. Rajasthan Government, Through District Representative District Collector, Bharatpur (Raj.) 8. Tehsildar, Pahadi Bhumi Dharak, Tehsil Pahadi (Bharatpur) Rajasthan 9. Gafoori D/o Sultan, R/o Thalchana Tehsil Pahadi 10. Bassi W/o Ishak D/o Siddique, R/o Thalchana Tehsil Pahadi 11. Hasanbasari W/o Dhoopo D/o Saddique, R/o Thalchana Tehsil Pahadi 12. Bassa Alias Basmeen W/o Nasir D/o Siddique, R/o Thalchana Tehsil Pahadi Currently R/o Ferozepur, Haryana 13. Rasool S/o Tundo, R/o Thalchana Tehsil Pahadi 14. Fajri D/o Chhitar W/o Baseer, R/o Thalchana Tehsil Pahadi ----Respondents For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Mayank Kumar Choudhary For Respondent(s) : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE NARENDRA SINGH DHADDHA [2025:RJ-JP:23770] (2 of 3) [CR-163/2025] Order 30/06/2025 This civil revision petition has been filed by the petitioner-defendant against the order dated 26.07.2022 passed by the Senior Civil Judge No.1, Kaman, District Bharatpur whereby the application filed by the defendants under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC has been dismissed. Along with the said petition, an application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act has been filed for condonation of delay of 1009 days. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that delay in filing the revision petition is unintentional. So, in the interest of justice, delay of 1009 days in filing the revision petition may be condoned. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner on the application under Section 5 of the limitation Act. The reasons given in the application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act are reproduced as under:- “The delay caused in filing the revision petition is genuine as the petitioner could not find an advocate and also did not know the legal remedy and also it took some time to receive the copy of the judgment. That when one of the defendant approached the counsel in Jaipur on 26.03.2025, he came to know available legal remedy.” The petitioner has not shown any plausible cause for filing the present revision petition after an inordinate delay of 1009 days. Entirely vague averments have been made. So, I do not consider it a fit case to condone the inordinate delay of 1009 [2025:RJ-JP:23770] (3 of 3) [CR-163/2025] days. Thus, application filed by the petitioner for condonation of 1009 days delay in filing the revision petition is devoid of merit and liable to be dismissed, which stands dismissed accordingly. Consequent upon the dismissal of the application under Section 5 of limitation Act, the revision petition also stands dismissed. Pending application(s), if any, also stand(s) disposed of. (NARENDRA SINGH DHADDHA),J Ritu/75