HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. Writ Restoration Application No.444/2025 In S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.4735/2013 1. Bhag Singh, Aged About 60 Years, Son Of Shri Firangi Alias Jagan Singh 2. Kaidar Kaur, Wife Of Shri Bhag Singh 3. Mahendra Singh, Son Of Shri Bhag Singh 4. Jainendra Singh, Son Of Shri Bhag Singh 5. Yogendra Singh, Son Of Shri Bhag Singh 6. Shri Bhan Singh, Son Of Shri Jugal Singh Since Deceased Through Legal Representatives - 6/1.Rama Devi, Wife Of Late Shri Bhan Singh 6/2. Pushkar Singh Son Of Late Shri Bhan Singh 7. Ganpat Singh, Son Of Shri Jugal Singh 8. Nirpat Singh, Son Of Shri Jugal Singh 9. Raghuveer Singh, Son Of Shri Jugal Singh 10. Surendra Singh Son Of Shri Jugal Singh All are resident of Supa presently at Bayana, District Bharatpur (Raj.) ----Petitioners Versus 1. Board Of Revenue, For Rajasthan At Ajmer. 2. State Of Rajasthan, Through Tehsildar Bayana, District Bharatpur. 3. Additional District Collector, Bharatpur Rajasthan. 4. Hari Shankar Sharma Son Of Shri Jagdish Prashad (Since Deceased), Through Legal Representatives- 4/1. Smt Rajkumari Sharma, W/o Late Hari Shankar Sharma 4/2. Ganga Shankar Sharma, S/o Late Hari Shankar Sharma 4/3.Ganesh Shankar Sharma, S/o Late Hari Shankar Sharma (2 of 3) [WRES-444/2025] All Are Resident Of Ganga Madir Bagh, Bayana, District Bharatpur (Rajasthan) ----Respondents For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Satyapal Poshwal (through VC) For Respondent(s) : Mr. Saransh Saini JUSTICE ANOOP KUMAR DHAND Order 27/08/2025 1. Matter comes up on restoration application seeking restoration of S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.4735/2013. 2. Learned counsel for the applicants-petitioners submits that vide order dated 07.03.2025, a per-emptory order was passed granting four weeks time to the petitioner to implead Mafi Mandir Shri Ganga Maharani as party respondent in the array of cause title in the writ petition. Counsel submits that pursuant to the aforesaid order, necessary application under Order 1 Rule 10 CPC was submitted on 02.04.2025. Counsel submits that slight delay has caused in complying with the per-emptory order dated 07.03.2025 passed by this Court. Counsel submits that the Office has rejected the writ petition for want of compliance of the per-emptory order within the stipulated time. Counsel submits that application has already been submitted on 02.04.2025, so the orders dated 07.03.2025 and 16.04.2025 be recalled and the writ petition be restored to its original number. 3. Counsel for the respondents opposed the prayer. (3 of 3) [WRES-444/2025] 4. Considering the arguments put forward by learned counsel for the petitioners and the reasons assigned in the restoration application, the instant restoration application stands allowed. The orders dated 07.03.2025 and 16.04.2025 stand recalled 5. S.B. Civil Writ petition No.4735/2013 is ordered to be restored to its original number. 6. Office to proceed further. (ANOOP KUMAR DHAND),J KuD/133