HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 8394/2025 1. Bikhu Singh Son Of Late Shri Bhairu Singh, Aged About 62 Years, Resident Of Agastya Muni Ki Gufa, Nalla, Pushkar, Tehsil Pushkar, District Ajmer. 2. Ram Singh Son Of Late Shri Bhairu Singh, Aged About 60 Years, Resident Of Agastya Muni Ki Gufa, Nalla, Pushkar, Tehsil Pushkar, District Ajmer. ----Petitioners Versus State Of Rajasthan, Through Tehsildar Pushkar, District Ajmer. ----Respondent For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Dilip Sharma For Respondent(s) : JUSTICE ANOOP KUMAR DHAND Order 30/05/2025 1. Counsel submits that feeling aggrieved by the order dated 31.07.2023 passed by the Revenue Appellate Authority (for short ‘RAA’), the respondent preferred a time barred appeal before the Board of Revenue (for short ‘the Board’) along with an application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, seeking condonation of delay. Counsel submits that without deciding the application submitted by the respondent under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, the case has been posted for final arguments on 09.06.2025. Counsel submits that unless and until, the delay in filing appeal is condoned, the matter cannot be decided on its merits, hence, under these circumstances, interference of this Court is warranted. (2 of 2) [CW-8394/2025] 2. Heard and considered the submissions made at Bar and perused the material available on the record. 3. This fact is not in dispute that the judgment was passed by the Revenue Appellate Authority on 31.07.2023 against which an appeal has been preferred by the respondent, which is said to be time barred by nine months. It is apprised at Bar that an application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act has been submitted seeking condonation of delay in filing of the aforesaid appeal, but till date, the application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act has not been decided and the case is posted for final arguments. 4. It is a settled proposition of law that while considering the plea for condonation of delay, the first and foremost duty of the Court is to ascertain the explanation and thereafter, consider the same and decide the application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act on its merits before deciding the appeal on its merits. 5. Since, limited issue has been raised in the instant writ petition, this Court deems it just and proper to direct the Board to decide the application submitted by the respondent under Section 5 of the Limitation Act before passing final order on the next date. 6. With the aforesaid observations, the instant writ petition stands disposed of. The stay application and all pending applications, if any, also stand disposed of. (ANOOP KUMAR DHAND),J KuD/370