HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 11937/2025 Badri Vishal Sharma Son Of Ramji Jaivan Sharma, Proprietor Sharma Colonizers And Developers, B-82, Rajamal Ka Talab, Jantabazar, Jaipur. ----Defendant-Petitioner Versus 1. Abdul Samad Son Of Hazi Nizamuddin, Resident Of In Front Of Chhatriyo, Delhi Road, Amer, Jaipur. -----Plaintiff-Respondent 2. Sub-Registrar, Amer, Jaipur. 3. Tehsildar, Amer, Jaipur. ----Respondents For Petitioner(s) : Mr. R.K. Agarwal, Sr. Adv. with Ms. Sunita Pareek For Respondent(s) : JUSTICE ANOOP KUMAR DHAND Order 08/08/2025 1. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the plaintiff-respondent filed a suit for injunction under Section 92-A read with Section 188 of the Rajasthan Tenancy Act, 1955 (for short, ‘the Act of 1955) before the Sub-Divisional Officer, Amer (for short, ‘SDO’). Counsel submits that prior to filing the revenue suit, the plaintiff-respondent filed one civil suit before the Civil Court along with a temporary injunction application, but the same was rejected by the Civil Court. Counsel submits that the revenue suit submitted by the plaintiff-respondent was suo motu rejected by the SDO by exercising its powers contained under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC (2 of 4) [CW-11937/2025] vide order dated 11.03.2025, against which an appeal was preferred by the plaintiff-respondent before the Revenue Appellate Authority (for short, ‘RAA’), who vide order dated 19.03.2025 while entertaining the appeal, keeping the same as pending, directed the parties to maintain status quo of the site and the revenue record. Counsel submits that aggrieved by the aforesaid order, the defendant-petitioner submitted a revision petition before the Board of Revenue (for short ‘Board’), which was dismissed maintaining the order of status quo and the Board issued directions to the RAA to decide the pending appeal expeditiously. Counsel submits that now the appeal is pending before the RAA and in the meantime, a transfer application was submitted by the plaintiff-respondent for transferring the appeal from RAA to some other Court. Counsel submits that the said transfer application has been rejected by the Board vide order dated 18.07.2025. Counsel submits that aggrieved by the aforesaid order, the plaintiff- respondent has submitted a writ petition before this Court and the same is pending before this Court, wherein, no interim order has been passed. Counsel submits that a copy of the said petition has been submitted before the RAA by the plaintiff-respondent and on this count alone the matter has been adjourned sine die by the RAA. Counsel submits that mere filing of a writ petition before this Court against the order of rejection of transfer application, does not amount to stay over the proceedings of the Appellate Authority, but even then, the matter has been adjourned for indefinite time. Counsel submits that the status quo order is operating against (3 of 4) [CW-11937/2025] the defendant-petitioner, which is in-fact not tenable, as the temporary injunction application submitted by the plaintiff- respondent before the Civil Court has already been rejected. Counsel further submits that the suit itself is barred by law and the same is not maintainable before the Revenue Court. Hence, interference of this Court is warranted. 2. Heard and considered the submissions made at the Bar and perused the material available on record. 3. Perusal of the record indicates that against the order passed by the SDO, by which the suit filed by the plaintiff- respondent has been rejected, the appeal submitted by the plaintiff-respondent is lying pending before the RAA. 4. It is expected from the RAA to decide the appeal expeditiously without being influenced by this fact that the writ petition has been submitted by the respondent against the order dated 18.07.2025, by which the transfer application submitted by the respondent has been rejected. There is no interim order passed by this Court, hence, the view taken by the RAA to defer the matter sine die is not sustainable. The Appellate Authority is free to hear and decide the appeal on its merits expeditiously. 5. In view of the above, the instant writ petition stands disposed of by issuing directions to the RAA to make all possible endeavours to decide the pending appeal expeditiously, preferably within a period of two months from the date of receipt of certified copy of the order, after affording due opportunity of hearing to all respective parties. (4 of 4) [CW-11937/2025] 6. The stay application and all pending applications, if any, also stand disposed of. (ANOOP KUMAR DHAND),J KuD/17