[2025:RJ-JP:30220] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.11841/2025 1. Gulab S/o Narayan, R/o Maharajpura Tehsil Lalsot, District Dausa. 2. Punya S/o Narayan, R/o Maharajpura Tehsil Lalsot, District Dausa. 3. Ramchandra S/o Narayan, R/o Maharajpura Tehsil Lalsot, District Dausa. ----Petitioners Versus 1. Hariram S/o Bhaurya @ Bhawariya, R/o Maharajpura Tehsil Lalsot, District Dausa. 2. Prahlad S/o Kishana, R/o Maharajpura Tehsil Lalsot, District Dausa. 3. Sitaram S/o Kishana, R/o Maharajpura Tehsil Lalsot, District Dausa. 4. Kailash S/o Kishana, R/o Maharajpura Tehsil Lalsot, District Dausa. 5. Prem Devi W/o Kishana, R/o Maharajpura Tehsil Lalsot, District Dausa. 6. Kanhaiya S/o Bhaurya, R/o Maharajpura Tehsil Lalsot, District Dausa. 7. Jagdish S/o Chunya, R/o Maharajpura Tehsil Lalsot, District Dausa. 8. State Of Rajasthan, Through Tehsildar, Lalsot, District Dausa. ----Respondents For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Mohit Gupta Mr. Nikhil Kumawat For Respondent(s) : Mr. Dinesh Yadav Mr. Ritu Raj Soni Mr. Mahendra Verma Mr. Ankit Yadav JUSTICE ANOOP KUMAR DHAND Order 06/08/2025 1. By way of filing this writ petition, a challenge has been led to the impugned order dated 16.07.2025 passed by the Board of [2025:RJ-JP:30220] (2 of 4) [CW-11841/2025] Revenue (hereinafter referred to as “Board”) by which the revision petition submitted by the petitioners against the impugned order dated 23.02.2023 passed by Assistant Collector, Lalsot District Dausa has been rejected. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that a suit for partition submitted by the father of the petitioners against the respondents was decreed on the basis of the compromise on 08.04.1980. Learned counsel submits that no execution petition for executing the compromise decree was submitted by either of the party till date and the limitation for filing execution proceedings is 12 years under the law. Learned counsel submits that the original plaintiff, i.e., the father of the petitioners, i.e., Narayan, expired in the year 1994 and almost 29 years after his death and 42 years of passing of the decree, an application under Sections 151 and 152 CPC was submitted by the respondents for correction of name of the father of the petitioners in the decree. Learned counsel submits that notice of the said application was not served upon the petitioners as they are legal representatives of the original plaintiff Narayan, who has already expired in the year 1994 and the learned Assistant Collector straightaway allowed the aforesaid application vide impugned order dated 23.02.2023 without affording any opportunity of hearing to the petitioners. Learned counsel submits that the aforesaid order suffers from violation of principles of natural justice, hence, interference of this Court is warranted. 3. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondents opposes the arguments raised by learned counsel for the petitioners and submits that there was no need to issue notice to the petitioners [2025:RJ-JP:30220] (3 of 4) [CW-11841/2025] as the power under Section 152 CPC lies with the Court to make clerical, arithmetical and grammatical correction in the order, hence, there was no need to issue notice to the petitioners for the aforesaid purpose and the Assistant Collector has not committed an error in correcting the name of the father of the petitioners in the operative part of the decree by holding that father of the name of the petitioners “Badri Narayan” be read as “Narayan”. Learned counsel submits that, under these circumstances, interference of this Court is not warranted and the writ petition is liable to be rejected. 4. Heard and considered the submissions made at the Bar and perused the material available on record. 5. Perusal of the record indicates that a suit for partition was filed by the father of the petitioners, i.e., Narayan against the respondents before the Court of Sub-Divisional Officer, Dausa and the same was decreed on the basis of compromise between the parties vide decree dated 08.04.1980. It appears that both the parties were sleeping and remained silent for a considerable time and the respondents submitted an application in the year 2023, after 42 years from the date of the decree, under Sections 151 and 152 CPC for correction of name of the father of the petitioners before the Court of Assistant Collector, Lalsot and the said application submitted by the respondents was allowed vide impugned order dated 23.02.2023. 6. It is worthy to note here that original plaintiff, i.e., the father of the petitioners Narayan expired in the year 1994 and without substituting his legal representatives on record and even without issuing notice to the legal representatives of the said plaintiff, the [2025:RJ-JP:30220] (4 of 4) [CW-11841/2025] application has been allowed vide impugned order dated 23.02.2023. 7. In the considered opinion of this Court, before passing the aforesaid order, the legal representatives of the original plaintiff were required to be substituted and they were required to be given opportunity of hearing. By not doing the aforesaid exercise, the principles of natural justice have been violated in the instant case. 8. On this count alone, the writ petition stands disposed of. The impugned order dated 23.02.2023 passed by Assistant Collector is not sustainable in the eye of law and is liable to be and is hereby quashed and set-aside. As a consequence thereof, the subsequent order dated 16.07.2025 passed by the Board also stands quashed and set-aside. 9. The matter is remitted to the Assistant Collector for passing fresh orders after affording due opportunity of hearing to the petitioners. 10. Needless to observe that the application submitted by the respondents would be decided by the Assistant Collector expeditiously, as early as possible, preferably within a period of three months from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order strictly in accordance with law. 11. Stay application as well as all applications (pending, if any) also stand disposed of. (ANOOP KUMAR DHAND),J Karan/42