[2025:RJ-JP:24001] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 9211/2025 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 1. Municipal Board Pushkar, Through Its Executive Officer, Pushkar, District Ajmer. 2. State of Rajasthan Through Its Collector, District Ajmer. ----Respondents For Petitioner(s) : Mr.Dilip Sharma JUSTICE ANOOP KUMAR DHAND Order 01/07/2025 1. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the appeal preferred by the petitioners before the Court of Revenue Appellate Authority (for short, “the RAA”) was allowed vide judgment dated 31.07.2023 wherein the petitioners were declared as khatedaar of the subject land. Counsel submits that aggrieved by the aforesaid judgment dated 31.07.2023, an appeal under Section 224 of the Rajasthan Tenancy Act, 1955 (for short, “the Act of 1955”) has been preferred by the Municipal Board, Pushkar before the Board of Revenue (for short, “the Board”) along-with an application under Section 96 CPC seeking leave to file appeal as the Municipal Board, Pushkar was not party in the array of the cause-title before [2025:RJ-JP:24001] (2 of 3) [CW-9211/2025] the First Appellate Court, i.e., the RAA. Counsel submits that an application filed under Section 96 seeking leave to file appeal and the application filed under Section 5 of the Limitation Act seeking condonation of delay in filing the appeal has not been decided and the case has straightaway been posted for final arguments. 2. Counsel submits that until and unless the application filed under Section 96 CPC seeking leave to file appeal and application filed under Section 5 of the Limitation Act for condonation of delay is not decided, the appeal under Section 224 cannot be heard and decided on its merits and demerits, hence, interference of this Court is warranted. 3. Heard and considered the submissions made at Bar and perused the material available on record. 4. Perusal of the record indicates that in the appeal preferred by the petitioners before the RAA, the Municipal Board, Pushkar was not party in the array of cause-title and the appeal preferred by the petitioners was allowed vide impugned judgment dated 31.07.2023 by the RAA. 5. It appears that feeling aggrieved by the aforesaid judgment, an appeal under Section 224 of the Act of 1955 has been preferred by the Municipal Board, Pushkar before the Board along- with an application under Section 96 CPC and an application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, as the appeal was barred by Limitation Act. 6. It is settled proposition of law that until and unless the application submitted by the party seeking leave to file appeal is not decided along-with the application filed under Section 5 of the Limitation Act seeking condonation of delay and until the delay in [2025:RJ-JP:24001] (3 of 3) [CW-9211/2025] filing appeal is not condoned, the Appellate Court cannot hear and decide the main matter finally. 7. Considering the above, the instant writ petition stands disposed of with a specific direction to the Board to first decide the application submitted by the Municipal Board, Pushkar under Section 96 CPC so also the application filed under Section 5 of the Limitation Act before deciding the appeal finally. It is expected from the Board to decide both these applications expeditiously strictly in accordance with law, after providing due opportunity of hearing to all the respective parties. 8. Stay application and all pending application(s), if any, also stand disposed of. (ANOOP KUMAR DHAND),J Aayush Sharma /8