[2025:RJ-JP:34274] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 11618/2025 1. Hanuman Son Of Rugha, 2. Madan Son Of Jaluram Both are Resident Ranoli Tehsil Danta Ramgarh District Sikar ----Appellants/Petitioners/Plaintiff Versus 1. Vijay Kumar Son Of Jagdevaram Ahir 2. Vinod Son Of Jagdevaram Ahir 3. Mahesh Son Of Jagdevaram Ahir 4. Bunty Sethi Son Of Nehru Sethi Mahajan 5. Mahendra Son Of Chauthmal Jat 6. Shyopal Son Of Hiraram Jat 7. Bajrng Son Of Ramlal Kumhar 8. Bajrang Son Of Kanaram Ahir 9. Raghunath Prasad Son Of Narayan Jat 10. Sanjanadevi Wife Of Sanwarmal Gurjar All Resident of Ranauli Tehsil Danta Ramgarh District Sikar. ----Defendant/ Respondents Non-Applicant 11. Rajasthan Government, Through Tehsildar Danta Ramgarh District Sikar. ----Respondent/Defendant For Petitioner(s) : Mr.Arafat Hussain JUSTICE ANOOP KUMAR DHAND Order 28/08/2025 1. The instant writ petition has been preferred against the impugned order dated 03.06.2025 passed by the Board of Revenue (for short, “the Board”) by which the revision petition submitted by the petitioners against the interim order dated [2025:RJ-JP:34274] (2 of 3) [CW-11618/2025] 07.05.2025 passed by the Revenue Appellate Authority (for short, “the RAA”) has been rejected. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that a suit for injunction was submitted by the petitioners against the respondents along-with a temporary injunction application under Section 212 of the Rajasthan Tenancy Act, 1955 (for short, “the Act of 1955”) before the Court of Assistant Collector, Sikar, wherein an interim order was passed on 19.03.2025 and the respondents were restrained to dispossess the petitioners and not to interfere in the possession of the petitioners over the subject land. 3. Counsel submits that subsequently an application under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC was submitted by the respondents for rejection of the plaint submitted by the petitioners, the said application was allowed by the Assistant Collector vide judgment dated 15.04.2025 and the plaint submitted by the petitioners was rejected, against which an appeal under Section 225 of the Act of 1955 has been preferred before the RAA along-with a stay application. Counsel submits that keeping the said application pending, the RAA refused to pass an interim order on 07.05.2025, hence, under these circumstances, the petitioners had approached the Board by way of filing revision petition. 4. Counsel submits that once an appeal has been preferred before the RAA along-with the stay application, it was the bounden duty of the Appellate Authority to pass appropriate orders on the stay application submitted by the petitioners, but instead of doing so, the matter was posted for arguments, after summoning the record, hence, interference of this Court is warranted. [2025:RJ-JP:34274] (3 of 3) [CW-11618/2025] 5. Heard and considered the submissions made at the Bar and perused the material available on record. 6. Perusal of the record indicates that the suit filed by the petitioners has been rejected by the Assistant Collector by allowing the application filed by the respondents under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC vide judgment dated 15.04.2025 against which an appeal has been preferred by the petitioners before the Court of RAA along-with the stay application, since the appeal as well as the stay application are still lying pending for its adjudication on its merits before the RAA, it is expected from the Appellate Authority, i.e., the RAA to pass appropriate orders on the stay application submitted by the petitioners expeditiously as early as possible, preferably within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of the certified copy of this order, after affording due opportunity of hearing to all the respective parties. 7. With the aforesaid observation, the instant writ petition stands disposed. Stay application and all pending application(s), if any, also stand disposed of. (ANOOP KUMAR DHAND),J Aayush Sharma/4