[2025:RJ-JP:35774] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 8531/2025 Jagdish S/o Late Nathuram, R/o Village Badharna, Tehsil Amer, District Jaipur. ----Petitioner Versus 1. Dinesh S/o Shri Kanhiyalal, R/o Village Badharna, Tehsil Amer, District Jaipur. 2. Laxminarayan S/o Late Omprakash, R/o Village Badharna, Tehsil Amer, District Jaipur 3. Kaluram S/o Late Omprakash, R/o Village Badharna, Tehsil Amer, District Jaipur 4. Babulal S/o Late Omprakash, R/o Village Badharna, Tehsil Amer, District Jaipur 5. Bhagwansahay S/o Late Omprakash, R/o Village Bad- harna, Tehsil Amer, District Jaipur 6. Rajendra S/o Late Omprakash, R/o Village Badharna, Tehsil Amer, District Jaipur 7. Ramkishore S/o Late Omprakash, R/o Village Badharna, Tehsil Amer, District Jaipur 8. Suresh S/o Late Omprakash, R/o Village Badharna, Tehsil Amer, District Jaipur 9. Mohini Devi W/o Late Nanu, R/o Village Badharna, Tehsil Amer, District Jaipur 10. Prahlad S/o Late Nanu, R/o Village Badharna, Tehsil Amer, District Jaipur 11. Vinod S/o Late Nanu, R/o Village Badharna, Tehsil Amer, District Jaipur 12. Ravi S/o Late Nathuram, R/o Village Badharna, Tehsil Amer, District Jaipur 13. Kailash S/o Late Nathuram, R/o Village Badharna, Tehsil Amer, District Jaipur 14. Ramjilal, S/o Late Nathuram 15. Mu. Ladi Widow Of Late Nathuram, R/o Village Badharna, Tehsil Amer, District Jaipur. 16. Smt. Prabhati D/o Late Syola Urf Syonarayan W/o Gopal, [2025:RJ-JP:35774] (2 of 5) [CW-8531/2025] R/o Village Badharna, Tehsil Amer, District Jaipur. 17. Smt. Nanchi D/o Late Syola Urf Syonarayan W/o Gopal, R/o Village Badharna, Tehsil Amer, District Jaipur. 18. Smt. Kamli D/o Syola W/o Ramu, R/o Village Badharna, Tehsil Amer, District Jaipur. 19. Smt. Shanti D/o Syola, W/o Ramswroop, R/o Haladpura, District Jaipur. 20. Smt. Meera D/o Late Syola, W/o Dinesh, R/o Luniyawas, Tehsil Sanganer, District Jaipur. 21. Ramnarayan S/o Late Syola Urf Syonarayan, R/o Village Badharna, Tehsil Amer, District Jaipur. 22. Mohanlal S/o Late Syola Urf Syonarayan, R/o Village Bad- harna, Tehsil Amer, District Jaipur. 23. Sharwan Kumar S/o Late Syola Urf Syonarayan, R/o Vil- lage Badharna, Tehsil Amer, District Jaipur. 24. Shriram S/o Late Syola Urf Syonarayan, R/o Village Bad- harna, Tehsil Amer, District Jaipur. 25. Kanhaiyalal S/o Late Shri Syolal Urf Syonarayan, R/o Vil- lage Badharna, Tehsil Amer, District Jaipur. ----Respondents For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Abhishek Pareek For Respondent(s) : Mr. Saurabh Bhandari JUSTICE ANOOP KUMAR DHAND Order 08/09/2025 1. The defect(s) pointed out by the office stands waived. 2. The instant writ petition has been preferred against the in- terim order dated 23.07.2024 passed by the Board of Revenue (for short, ‘the Board’) by which the record of the Trial Court has been summoned. [2025:RJ-JP:35774] (3 of 5) [CW-8531/2025] 3. Counsel for the petitioner submits that the suit filed by the petitioner was decreed by the Trial Court and the judgment passed by the Trial Court has been upheld by the Appellate Court, hence the execution petition has been preferred for execution of the de- cree and judgment passed by the trial Court. Counsel submits that an application was submitted by the respondents for their im- pleadment before the Executing Court and the said application was rejected against which a revision petition has been preferred by the respondent No.1 before the Board wherein the record of the Trial Court has been summoned due to which the execution proceedings have been hampered. Counsel submits that against the same order dated 23.07.2024, the petitioner approached this Court by way of filing SBCWP No.14376/2024 and the same was disposed of by this Court vide order dated 06.09.2024 by granting liberty to the petitioner to make a prayer before the Board of Rev- enue for expeditious disposal of the revision petition and for re- turning the original record after retaining the photocopies of the same on record. Counsel submits that the aforesaid order was passed almost one year ago but till date, neither original record has been returned nor the revision petition has been decided fi- nally, hence interference of this Court is warranted. 4. Per contra, counsel for the respondents opposes the argu- ments raised by counsel for the petitioner and submits that after passing of the order dated 06.09.2024, an application was submit- ted by the petitioner before the Board for compliance of the afore- said order and arguments on the said application have already been heard by the Board and now the matter is kept reserved for [2025:RJ-JP:35774] (4 of 5) [CW-8531/2025] pronouncement of the order, hence under these circumstances, in- terference of this Court is not warranted. 5. Heard and considered the submissions made at Bar and pe- rused the material available on record. 6. Perusal of the record indicates that on 23.07.2024, the Board has summoned the original record of the Trial Court while admit- ting the revision petition submitted by the respondent against the order passed by the Executing Court. It appears that aggrieved by the aforesaid order, the petitioner approached this Court by way of filing SBCWP No. 14376/2024 and the same was disposed of by this Court with the following observations and directions. “Learned counsel for the petitioners is not pressing these petitions with liberty to make a prayer before the Board of Revenue for expeditious disposal of the revision and that the photocopy of the record be re- tained and original be returned. These petitions are disposed of as not pressed with liberty as prayed for. There is no doubt in the eventuality of such a prayer being made by the petitioners, the Board of Revenue shall consider the same in accordance with law.” 7. Perusal of the aforesaid order indicates that a liberty was granted to the petitioner for making prayer before the Board for expeditious disposal of the revision petition and returned the origi- nal record after retaining the photocopy of the same on record. 8. It appears that when an application under Section 151 CPC was submitted by the petitioner for the aforesaid purpose, argu- ments have been heard and the matter was kept reserved but on the subsequent date i.e. 30.04.2025 the matter was released for [2025:RJ-JP:35774] (5 of 5) [CW-8531/2025] rehearing the arguments for the next date i.e. 07.05.2025 and thereafter the case was posted for 15.05.2025 but till date, the application is still pending for its adjudication on its merits. The aforesaid act/action of the Board is highly unwarranted. Once a clear and specific direction was issued by this Court for expedi- tious disposal of the revision petition then there was no reason or occasion available with the Board to keep the matter reserved for deciding the application submitted under Section 151 CPC and for releasing the same for rehearing for the further arguments on the said application. 9. Keeping in view the above facts and circumstances of the case, this Court deems it just and proper to dispose of the instant writ petition with clear and specific direction to the Board to pass appropriate order on the application submitted under Section 151 CPC and make all possible endeavours to decide the revision peti- tion on the next date and if not possible then by fixing a short date but not beyond the period of one month from the date of re- ceipt of the certified copy of this order. 10. In case, the revision petition is not decided within the above stipulated time, the record of the trial Court be returned. 11. Stay application and all pending application (s), if any, also stand disposed of. (ANOOP KUMAR DHAND),J Ashu/148