[2025:RJ-JP:34605-DB] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR D.B. Special Appeal (Writ) No. 1024/2025 In S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.8819/2024 1. Kherati Khan S/o Makbul Khan, R/o Village Didwana, Tehsil Lalsot, District Dausa, (Raj.). 2. Babu Khan S/o Makbul Khan, (Since Deceased), Through Legal Heir. 2/1.Jetun Begum, Widow of Late Babu Khan 2/2.Usman Son of Late Babu Khan 2/3.Akbar S/o Late Babu Khan 2/4. Mehboob S/o Late Babu Khan 2/5.Suban S/o Late Babu Khan 2/6.Irfan S/o Late Babu Khan 2/7. Salman S/o Late Babu Khan 2/8. Munni Bano D/o Late Babu Khan 2/9.Shaban D/o Late Babu Khan All Resident of Village Didwana, Tehsil Lalsot, District Dausa. 3. Imamudin S/o Makbul Khan, Deceased, Through Legal Heirs. 3/1. Eid Mohammed S/o Imamudin, Deceased Through Legal Heirs. 3/1/1. Peer Mohammed S/o Eid Mohammed 3/1/2. Ashiya D/o Eid Mohammed 3/1/3. Peeran Bano W/o Eid Mohammed All R/o Gram Mandawari, Tehsil Lalsot, District Dausa. 3/2. Salim, S/o Imamudin 3/3. Mariyam, D/o Imamudin 3/4. Madina, D/o Imamudin 3/5. Jubeda D/o Imamudin, All R/o Gram Dedwana, Tehsil Lalsot, District Dausa. ----Appellants/Defendants/Applicants Versus 1. Parveen Begum W/o Late Shri Sardar Mohammed, Aged About 53 Years, R/o Village Didwana Tehsil Lalsot, District [2025:RJ-JP:34605-DB] (2 of 3) [SAW-1024/2025] Dausa Through Power of Attorney Akram Khan S/o Afzalkhan, R/o Jaipur Road PNB Bank Mahwa, District Dausa, Rajasthan. ---Respondent/Plaintiff/Non Applicant 2. State of Rajasthan, Through Tehsildar, Lalsot, District Dausa. ----Respondent For Appellant(s) : Mr. Peush Nag HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJEEV PRAKASH SHARMA HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJEET PUROHIT Order 29/08/2025 1. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellants submitted that an ex-parte decree was passed on 29.01.1987, which was set aside by subsequent order dated 09.07.1987. In the meanwhile, the revenue record was changed and entries were made with respect to the land on the basis of an ex-parte decree. For the same, an application was moved under Section 144 CPC to restore the position, as it was existing prior to passing of the ex-parte decree dated 29.01.1987. The same was allowed and upheld by the Board of Revenue, but the learned Single Judge has set-aside the said orders erroneously. 2. We have considered the submissions. 3. We noticed that the learned Single Judge has taken into consideration the aspect relating to the ex-parte decree having been set aside on 09.07.1987. We find that the learned Single Judge has observed that the Sub Divisional Officer (for short ‘SDO’), was supposed to hear and decide the suit on merits. [2025:RJ-JP:34605-DB] (3 of 3) [SAW-1024/2025] Learned Single Judge also noticed that SDO vide order dated 12.01.2022 directed the parties to maintain status quo on the site as well as on the record. 4. In view thereto, there was no occasion for passing orders on application under Section 144 CPC on 21.09.2022. We are in agreement with the observations of the learned Single Judge that the order dated 21.09.2022, directing for restoring the record in favour of the appellants would have amounted to violating the status quo order already passed on 12.01.2022. 5. Once the Court has already directed to maintain the status quo on the site as well as on the record, there is no occasion for apprehension on part of the appellants or the respondents selling of the land or changing the nature of the land. The record would also be maintained in terms of the status quo order. 6. The directions issued by the learned Single Judge for deciding the suit itself expeditiously and within the period laid down therein, does not warrant any interference. 7. The present Special Appeal (Writ) is wholly misconceived and is accordingly, dismissed. 8. Pending application(s), if any, stand disposed of. (SANJEET PUROHIT),J (SANJEEV PRAKASH SHARMA),J AMIT/17